This is an archive of past discussions about Unidentified flying object. 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.
UFO's do exist because the saucer resonates on a higher frequency, one that is even above the dimmest sound perceivable by human ears. That is why to many witnesses, the jet does not produce any sound and moves at unconceivable speeds. The saucer can indeed perform space travels through the conversion of bodily mass (the pilot and the jet) to hyper-energy, E=MC4. This is done through the emission of will energy of the soul of the pilot. It is controled and manuvered by the pilot's psychic ability. In other words, the saucer is a result of a cybernetic invention, where the brain of the pilot mingles with the will of the jet through an exogenous brain wave that is attainable only with the help of superior spiritual knowledge. Humanity is unconceivable of such psychic ability in its current stage of evolution. It lacks the knowledge of the immaterial power over the material physics. But in the future, should humanity survive the upcoming chaos, it will overcome the test of inventing its own saucer craft. China and India are most likely the cradle for such a revolutionary technological discovery. However, it is much easiers to embrace our space brothers from Venus and Mars and let them catalyze our effort, only if we pass their tests first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.229.128 (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
THE FIRST CONFIRMED UFO WAS ON 5 MARCH 2009 IN BULGARIA, NOW WE HAVE PROOF THEY EXIST! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.180.13.95 (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Given the probabilities, it is reasonable to assume that "a certain fraction of stars have sufficient lifespans, and one or more planets in the right region" to develop life as we would recognise it, at least some of which will be sentient. The issue is - is it possible for "a reasonable means of physical travel or other form of communication to be developed for intersteller travel or networking in a meaningful sense" to occur.
Has any explanation been given for the number of aliens/UFOs who state they have come from Venus, when it is manifestly hostile to most life (barring, possibly, some very hardy "bacteria and other beasties"?
Most reports of aliens coming from Venus were made before it was known that Venus was so hostile to life. Since that time, a larger percent of the aliens being reported were from Mars .... until we started sending more and more space probes there and confirming that there was no large scale life there. Now, more and more the aliens are from extrasolar planets. It should give someone thought about the nature of these reports. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
(NB long talk page)
The fact that UFO science continues to develop as it learns more about inner space and our solar system does not imply anything negative about its nature of its reports. In fact, it rather strengthens the possible claim sas to their veracity since it shows that like all other sciences such as biology, chemistry, astrolomy, et al that it continues to develop as more and more advanced research techniques befome availanche. Smith Jones (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Obviously the visitors were lying about where they came from. When their lies were discovered, they changed their story. ;) --TS20:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The question is whether firsthand accounts of UFO encounters should be believed. At one time, such accounts were often of visitors from Venus. Later accounts were of visitors from Mars. Now the witnesses say that the visitors are from other solar systems. Surely, the development of "UFO science" wouldn't cause such variation in first-hand accounts? (In the 19th century, strange visitors came in balloons, didn't they?)
"It is likely" that there is sentient life (however defined) elsewhere in the universe and that some of such species will be more technologically advanced. 120 years ago the possibility of powered flight was not considered feasible - so there may be mechanisms for space travel we do not presently know.
An article on "parallels between encounters with UFOs and their inhabitants and contemporary knowledge of astronomical bodies/science fiction themes" could be developed for Wikinfo. In the historical context there are many stories of encounters with gods/elves/angels/other strange creatures - so such events seem to be part of human nature - and the expectation that we are not alone in the universe.
Perhaps if we say that Aliens-if-they-exist-and-visit-us may well simplify their story to help human understanding "many points of view will be catered for."
Why did the ancient-visitors not teach the locals "useful things" (health and hygiene, basic technology etc) rather than go in for fancy displays?
Your impersonal position is nto relevent to the actual content of the article. We are only here to provide the mainstream scientific persepctive and the cultural viewpoint vis a vis UFO science an d therefore it requires sources, as in WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:JNN, and WP:N to maintain the high standards of citations and verifiabilitation demanded forth as regarding to an article. Smith Jones (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm begining to have more faith in people after reading this. I remember watching a video of an old man telling how "Aliens" took him to their home planet (Saturn) and showed him wonderful cities of silvery metal that swayed. UFOlogists (I can't believe thats being accepted as a real term) disregard these earlier claims completely, and focus on the now. The Ummo letters, which stated that came from Wolf 224 (244?) were wrong (Saying it was only 3.4 light years when its really 14). They explained it as Being different due to the theory of reletivity. Funny how these "Aliens" know so much about our society (Like what we named their solar system). And our written language(s). And our unproven (but believable) theories. And how such an advanced species decided to communicate through our postal service rather than send a global radio broadcast.
And of course comes the arguments, but you cannot prove a negative by not proving the positive. You MUST prove the negative to disprove the positive. Thats how the Scientific Process Works (Theory, Experiment, Experiment, Experiment, Conclusion, Experiment, etc...)
SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Venus in general deserves much greater examination, in all scientific and other contexts. The scientific estimation of temperatures & pressures, e.g., is poorly documented, not the subject of open scientific discussion, and not recently confirmed by (paucity of) modern probes. Few of the so-called "experts" are willing to even causally share data, sources of that data, or the calculations used to make final determinations as to the atmosphere and environment of Venus. The nearly-complete converse is true as to the study of the desert planet Mars. The most distressing aspect of the supposed public study of Venus is that there is no real active study, discussion, or scientific work in the PD concerning the conditions on Venus, other than the "standard line." Even if conditions are extreme on Venus, a logical thinker would still believe the planet to be of enormous interest. Is that the case? Draw your own conclusions as to the study of our closest planetary neighbor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.196.117 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 1 February 2009
See Observations and explorations of Venus. Venus has been observed by telescope, ground radar, and spacecraft, including fly-bys, orbiters and landers from the Soviet Union, the United States, and Europe. Venus Express is in orbit right now. What this is supposed to have to do with unidentified flying objects in earth's atmosphere, I can only guess. --TS20:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, tonight (25-12-09) me and my family witnessed what looked like fire balls all going on the same path in the sky and traveling faster than any plane i ve ever seen then they all stoped in a triangle shape if anybody has seen anything like this please write back on this site thank you ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.123.156 (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Pine Bush UFO activity
Pine Bush and his neighbourhood is the center of the UFO activiy. Unusual lights, huge dark objects with brillant flashing colored lights and amall gray aliens. Triangle, qaudrangle, diamond, manta ray and boomerang shaped objects. These objects and lights hover or move above the fields, in the altitude of the tree crowns, with incredible manoeuvres on Pine Bush neighbourhood.
Anybody may observe these objects, who visits onto the fields on Pine Bush neighbourhood!
The Best UFO hotspot in the world!
External links:
[http://www.strangeactivity.co.cc Pine Bush UFO watch]
Um, actually the UFO Hotspot in the world is around the Nevada Test Sight. Hmmmm...I seem to recall a base there...Groom Lake? Where the U2, F117, Blackbird and B2 were developed and tested? Wow! Aliens must love our Military Technology! I bet they learned a lot from us! Next someone will say that the Wright Brothers learned to fly from watching a UFO.
SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC).
Stephenville:Bush Ranch visited by UFOs
Did you know that a UFO got over the Bush Residence, i.e. "The Texas White House"? Its in the MUFON report. This is the second time that a UFO has paid the President of the US a visit. The first time was in 1952, in which a UFO fleet was seen over Washington DC, and Truman was prez at the time. Maybe the aliens gave Bush a anal probe.65.163.117.135 (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe UFO's attacked the World Trade Center and made holograms to make it look like planes? Yeah, and I'm running with Palin in 2012 as the VP. If another species of intelligent life traveled across the Galaxy to get here on technology we couldn't fathom, wouldn't they be a little more "stealthy"? We're a few years away from the "Predator Suit" (Which makes you hard to see) and we haven't even been to the closest planet in our solar system. If they were here, and they didn't want us to know, you wouldn't.
SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC).
"Down to Earth Thoughts"
Ok, maybe some UFO sightings are genuine UFOs, but most can be explained away. Here's a few theories I like to hold dear:
o Most UFO sightings didn't occur until the modern era, after the creation of the USSR and CIA/KGB. If "Aliens" were visiting us, why not come sooner?
o The first "Stealth" program started as early as 1940's, when the Allies discovered the British Mosquito plane had little to no radar signature due to its unique construction. Right around the time mentioned above.
o The Original Have Blue Aircraft (Pre-F117) was so classified only a dozen or so people outside the project knew about it at any given time. The Aircraft was unsuccessful, and did crash. It was later redesigned into the F117 Nighthawk.
o The CIA invested a lot of time and effort into keeping out nations secrets secret. Declassified in 1994: One project was designed to perpetuate the UFO / Alien theory to keep the Stealth and other "Black" projects out of the public eye as Military. By keeping the Military out of the loop, it forced them to investigate and deny this, making them seem to have a "cover up".
o Most modern technology has come from military research (Microwaves, Computers, Commercial Aircraft, Cell Phones, GPS, Color Television, etc.). It can be safely assumed that for every piece of technology that comes out, there is at least two more that are classified. This is why great technological leaps usually come from Wars.
o Our government is not evil. Medical technology is released as soon as it is discovered (Quick Clot being a good example, Hospitals had it before us Combat Soldiers). If the government / military has a new secret weapon that is undetectable by normal means, who does it hurt by keeping it a secret? Only those that wish to bring harm to our country.
o Out of all the "Alien" theories, not one piece of concrete proof has stood up to scientific examination. I especially love the "Alien Autopsy" video that was disputed to be "real". I have seen autopsy videos of Humans and Animals, and in each one, the camera is on a stable platform and follow's the examining doctor's instruction. Plus, the doctor does not use kitchen gloves, painter's suit, exacto hobby knife or a dust mask for protection, even in the most backwater town. If the military, which is has access to some of the best doctors in the world, were to do an autopsy on a being from another planet, doesn't it make sense to do it properly?
And lets not forget the depressions in the ground, "higher" levels of radiation, and strange burn patterns. Three easy solutions: Metal Templates, Radon Gas (Found naturally) and rubbing Alcohol (Or even moonshine).
o During times of National Crisis or War, sightings seem to drop. Might just be my calculations, but I'm pretty sure its due to a lack of intrest, since there are more important things going on. What would change our society more, a war with another country, or contacting a race of aliens from another Solar System? Maybe if Aliens WERE really here, they would be more important. But they're not. And no, its not a ploy by the government to keep the common person under their control.
o Our need to understand the greater picture drives us. Some to religion, and others to science (Or pseudo-science). It drives people to discover great things in this world (Martin Luthor, Jesus Christ, Albert Einstein, Robert Oppenheimer, etc.). Our lives are short in the cosmic scheme, and we need to understand there is something more out there. Don't worry, we'll all find out when we get there.
That about covers the basics. It just drives me crazy when people take lack of proof as proof of its opposite. If you cannot prove it, then its not real and not fact until it is. I do believe that we are not alone in the Universe, but I'm pretty sure they have left us alone, if they have indeed discovered how to get here.
Wow. Ain't that something. The intro says "...what might well have be a UFO, possibly crashing into earth...... Multiple photos of the object have come to light...". You can come up with a heading which says UFO crashes in Saudia Arabia from something that might be a ufo, and possibly crashed, but I note you haven't come up with a single one of the multiple photos.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC) (forgot sig)
Ufos: science put into effect for Mass Public conception
UFOs are made by cathode rays that line the outer hull. A Ufo can easily be made within the magnetic field by simple vacuum technology. The etheric matter, or electricity from the sun present is not substantial yet for mass public uses. If people would just use this technology by distributing electrons via outside the hull using a simple engineering feat I
like to call solar energy to distribute power to the vacuum accelerator it would be creditable. --66.81.43.89 (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
*Grah*
So many opinions... cannot delete them all... *faints*
Has anyone read the tag on the top that says please do not post opinions, things merely 'about' the subject, etc.? Seriously. The talk pages are for improving the article.
I have an answer to people posting stuff about UFO accidents by the way... request or create an article about it. Don't just post it here.
So someone has saw fit to remove my list template message "The inclusion of items in this list is disputed" but not bothered to respond to my objection (on this talk page, under "UFO hypotheses") or correct the list.
Frankly, if there were a Wikipedia tag "This list makes no sense at all" I'd have used that.
I'm restoring the warning tag. If anyone sees fit to remove it, first look at and respond to my objection please.--77.44.77.44 (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I think like anything in Wikipedia, the burden is on the editor adding something to this list to provide a reliable source to show that this hypothesis has been proposed. In the absence of sourcing, the information should be removed. I note that the only item on the list currently sourced is the one discussing meteorology. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Now that my original objection is on an archived page, I'll just summarise my argument as follows: a) I cannot discern what justifies the division of explanations into the two lists. Just what are they "proponents" or "skeptics" of, exactly? It seems like it's someone's idea of "reasonable" versus "unreasonable" explanations. b) The whole idea of the lists is flawed: virtually everyone would agree that different sightings may have different explanations. Even a "believer" wouldn't believe every sighting is of an extraterrestrial craft. --87.194.54.154 (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this section is contested. The very fact that there's still an unidentified phenomenon begs a hypothesis or three. Furthermore this is a very small list of the total number possibilities. For a more complete list see here. I'd be more than happy to provide reliable sources for each. --Xtraeme (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Retagging article
I just came back to this article after a hiatus. What a piece of awful! I have tagged the article with the appropriate tags. Luckily Jay Pasachoff and Alex Filippenko's Astronomy text has two pages on UFOs that we can use as the basis for this article's structure. We have proposals in other places too. There was a lot of original research in the Venus section that I just removed, by the way.
LOL! What about the military investigations? Are they not experts? There are a lot more than two pages worth from this angle alone. Anarwan (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The military investigations are over. The results: UFOs are not a phenomena that the military needs worry about because they aren't aircraft that are unknown to the military. The only people left believing in UFOs as "craft" are the most unreliable sources we've got: either too ignorant or too crazy to be useful. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The military investigations aren't actually over. But even if they were, at least they were investigations in the first place, and the findings should go here in this article. What investigation have your astronomers done?Anarwan (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The "findings" are discussed by Pasachoff and Filippenko and will be included here. They provide an excellent source (along with Phil Plait and others) as to the meta-discussion of UFOs. Much better than the nonsense coming out of the MUFON crowd, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I still don't understand the focus on astronomers. As far as I understand the various explanations given for UFOs, they are as follows (with the relevant experts in brackets): misidentification of known astronomical phenomena (astronomers); misidentification of known/unknown meteorological phenomena (meteorologists); misidentifcation of known aircraft (aviation experts); misidentification of unknown aircraft (aviation experts specializing in black projects etc.); psychological phenomena (psychologists). So, we have 4-5 different groups of potential experts on UFOs coming from many different angles, and all with a claim to expertise on some aspect of the phenomenon. And we haven't even mentioned those who think UFOs are alien craft yet, nor the popular culture angle, nor the sociological, nor the historical etc. In light of this, the views of astronomers should take their place in the article (provided the astronomers in question have actually studied the phenomenon), but they should take their place alongside the other groups and not be given special status. Anarwan (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Astronomers, by virtue of their profession, field the vast majority of UFO reports from the general public. In any case, see the quotes I listed below. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I am a professional astronomer, and I too do not understand the focus on astronomers. To remove the heat from the discussion, suppose Botswana's military were secretly flying highly advanced craft around the USA. Would you look to astronomers to verify or discredit this? I hope not! Richard Conn Henry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.146.222 (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
People become experts on a subject by studying and being recognized as such by others. The best expert on the Lincoln assassination that I know of (currently living) is a retired microbiologist. As a matter of wikipedia policy, if two astronomers include a section on UFOs in a college textbook, and it survives the editorial and peer review process, then we can consider it a reliable source. But this whole discussion misses the point. ScienceApologist said that he did not like the format of the article and would like to use Pasachoff and Filippenko's approach as the structural basis for a rewrite. Its really irrelevant where he gets the idea for a rewrite from, from a textbook, or his own head, or anywhere else. There are no privileged sources for editorial decisions like what order the sections should go in, and no priority is given to the current version of the article over a potential rewrite. If ScienceApologist wants to rewrite the article using Pasachoff and Filippenko as a guide, he is welcome to do so, either boldly in the article space itself, or as a draft version that can be posted here for comment first (strongly advised for major rewrites). If you have a better idea on how to structure the article, you are free to attempt a rewrite as well, wherever you get your ideas from. If the rewrite is controversial, a request for third opinion or RFC can be posted to solicit additional viewpoints. Thatcher13:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Astronomers are one of a number of important sources regarding UFOs. However, to reinforce the points made above, the UK UFO files from the DoD, the French UFO files, and various reports cited in the article constitute evidence that a vast number of UFO sightings are "fielded" by people who are most not astronomers. Unless extraordinary evidence is provided, as requested Anarwan above, that astronomers field the "vast majority of UFO reports from the public", the overwhelming weight of evidence against this assertion speaks for itself. Holon (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Indiscriminate tagging without any indication for editors of the perceived problems
Please tell me there is greater justification for plastering of the article with multiple tags than "Luckily Jay Pasachoff and Alex Filippenko's Astronomy text has two pages on UFOs". Nice to have an astronomer put that one to bed immediately. There are more sources per word in this article (about 7.5 sources per 100 words) than for the entry for Special Relativity (about 5.6 sources per 100 words). A reminder to us all, Editors are STRONGLY encouraged to try and perform clean-up themselves before posting articles to the list before requesting
cleanup. A couple of minutes work was enough to remove content that requested verification. This calls into question the full array/assortment of apparently indiscriminate tagging. Specific issues should be raised. At a minimum, provide examples that are not readily dealt with on the spot. I'm not saying the request can't be justified, but it most certainly has not been justified in this case. If there is a justification in the history, please let me know so I can evaluate the specific points and which remain relevant. This kind of tagging is simply not conducive to constructive development of articles. If we read a tag, let alone multiple tags, we should be able to determine what the specific issues are. Holon (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to consider forking the identification material. It was recently added in a merge from Identified flying object, however the merge was disputed and there was a revert war between Anarwan and ScienceApologist over the merge. My feeling is that "Identified flying object" is a poor title as it implies a significant difference between identified and unidentified--this is also obvious from the lead paragraph of IFO. (I do think there was an agenda there.) I recommend forking the identification material into an article titled something like Identification studies of UFOs. Leave a summary paragraph here with a "for main article see..." link. When doing this the Identification article needs to be rewritten as well, it can't just be a rename of the current article but a rename and a rewrite. I can't do it now but might try late tonight. I would also like to wait for Anarwan and SA to come back on line and have a chance to offer their opinions (as long as they do not resume revert-warring). Thatcher12:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I would only add that "Identified flying object" and "IFO" should of course redirect to "Identification studies of UFOs" as there does seem to be some popular general use of the terms "Identified flying object" and "IFO" on mainstream websites. -- Levine2112discuss23:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed the identification material and forked it to Identification studies of UFOs, which still needs work. I also removed the classification details since they are already given at Ufology. I suspect some of the lists of examples are too long, and the "other investigations" section definitely needs a rewrite for style reasons. Thatcher00:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Quotes to use in making statements here and other UFO articles
All are from Pasachoff, Jay M and Alex Filippenko (2004). The Cosmos: Astronomy in the New Millennium. Brooks/Cole div. of Thomson Learning. pp. 428–430. ISBN053439550. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help).
“
The most common UFO is a light that appears in the sky that seems to the observer unlike anything made by humans or any commonly understood natural phenomenon
”
“
[O]bservations [of UFOs] are usually anecdotal, are not controlled in a scientific experiment, and are not accessible to study by sophisticated instruments
”
“
It is not well known that a bright star or a planet low on the horizon can seem to flash red or green because of atmospheric refraction.
”
“
Atmospheric effects can effect radar as well as visible light.
”
“
One should not accept explanations that UFOs are flying saucers from other planets before more mundane explanations-including hozes, exaggeration, and fraud-are exhausted.
”
“
For many of the effects that have ben reported, the UFOs would have been defying well-established laws of physics.
”
“
UFOs can be so completely explained by natural phenomena that they are not worthy of more of our time.
”
“
Although most of us (astronomers) do not categorically deny the possibility that UFOs exist (after all, the Voyager spacecraft might someday pass by a planet orbiting another star), the standard of evidence expected of all claims in science has not yet been met.
”
“
Scientists have assessed the probability of UFOs being flying saucers from other worlds, and most have decided that the probability is so low that we have better things to do with our time and with our national resources. We have so many other, simpler explanations of the phenomena that are reported as UFOs that when we apply Occam's Razor, we call the identifications of UFOs with extraterrestrial visitation "false".
”
“
Evidence that UFOs visit us is not convincing; most of the reports can be easily explained by atmospheric and other natural phenoman. Although it is possible that some of the sightings are of actual UFOs, Occam's Razor suggests otherwise, until the evidence becomes much stronger.
”
I'd like to see these concepts elucidated on this page, and will work to do so.
These seem like useful concepts. I would like to see the identification section expanded a bit, with a list of misidentified objects, a short paragraph about each, and a link to a fork or main article if appropriate. For example, people may have heard terms like "Venus" and "swamp gas" in connection with UFos, there should be a short explanation here. And there is that psychological phenomenon where you think you're awake but still have sleep paralysis, that some argue is responsible for visitation scenarios. Thatcher00:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
So what does it mean in the context it was used above, when ScienceApologist said he'd "like to see these concepts elucidated on this page" and Thatcher said they were useful concepts. There were no concepts there at all. And your definition, 7h3, is rubbish - try reading your own link. Anarwan (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
A suggestion. If you want to cite from Astronomy in the New Millennium, consider reading this statement on ufos to the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, Department of Meteorology, University of Arizona first [[1]]. One of its basic purposes was to address "commonly encountered questions" (section 7). Strong rebuttals were put forward long ago in this statement, with reference to a body of empirical data in the form of documented cases (as well other sources of information).
I think this will probably get into too much detail for a general article, so a summary may be necessary. Just to give an idea -- asone example, it is stated that Dr Menzel explains the sighting by Clyde Tombaugh as resulting from reflection of lights from the ground "reflected by an inversion or haze layer" ... ""such an 'explanation' is not merely difficult to understand; it is incredible. For an inversion layer to produce such a near-normal reflection of window lights would demand a discontinuity of refractive index so enormously large compared with anything known to occur in our atmosphere as to maek it utterly out of the question". So by all means raise issues, but please do with the well-known rebuttals in mind to avoid wasting time. Holon (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Incidentally, the author James McDonald was a specialist in atmospheric physics. Holon (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Pre-modern
Eh... maybe the pre-modern bit (the title) should be reworded. Maybe.
I've removed, at least for now, an unsourced description of a hypothesis that flying saucers are fallen angels. It can be put back if and when correctly sourced to show that it is a hypothesis seriously entertained such as to merit inclusion here.. --TS15:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
COMETA
The unofficial French COMETA report is misplaced in the "Supporters of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis" section, because COMETA concluded that the ETH was "far from the best scientific hypothesis" (see bottom of p71 in the Conclusions). I have removed it. --TS23:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Supporters of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis
I've removed this here because it seems to lack balance. By and large the scientific conclusion to date is that the ETH is unsupported by the empirical evidence. This collection of assorted supporters for the ETH gives the false impression that, to the contrary, the ETH is considered to be a strong hypothesis.
Other private or governmental studies, some secret, have concluded in favor of the Extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH), or have had members who disagreed with the official conclusions. The following are examples of such studies and individuals:
In 1967, Greek physicist Paul Santorini, a Manhattan Project scientist, publicly stated that a 1947 Greek government investigation that he headed into the European Ghost rockets of 1946 quickly concluded that they were not missiles. Santorini claimed the investigation was then quashed by military officials from the U.S., who knew them to be extraterrestrial, because there was no defense against the advanced technology and they feared widespread panic should the results become public. (ref: Good (1988), 23)
A 1948 Top Secret USAF Europe document (at right) states that Swedish air intelligence informed them that at least some of their investigators into the ghost rockets and flying saucers concluded they had extraterrestrial origins: "...Flying saucers have been reported by so many sources and from such a variety of places that we are convinced that they cannot be disregarded and must be explained on some basis which is perhaps slightly beyond the scope of our present intelligence thinking. When officers of this Directorate recently visited the Swedish Air Intelligence Service... their answer was that some reliable and fully technically qualified people have reached the conclusion that 'these phenomena are obviously the result of a high technical skill which cannot be credited to any presently known culture on earth.' They are therefore assuming that these objects originate from some previously unknown or unidentified technology, possibly outside the earth." (ref: Document quoted and published in Timothy Good (2007), 106–107, 115; USAFE Item 14, TT 1524, (Top Secret), 4 November 1948, declassified in 1997, National Archives, Washington D.C.)
West Germany, in conjunction with other European countries, conducted a secret study from 1951 to 1954, also concluding that UFOs were extraterrestrial. This study was revealed by German rocketry pioneer Hermann Oberth, who headed the study and who also made many public statements supporting the ETH in succeeding years. At the study's conclusion in 1954, Oberth declared, "These objects (UFOs) are conceived and directed by intelligent beings of a very high order. They do not originate in our solar system, perhaps not in our galaxy."
During the height of the flying saucer "flap" of July 1952, including highly publicized radar/visual and jet intercepts over Washington, D.C., the FBI was informed by the Air Force Directorate of Intelligence that they thought the "flying saucers" were either "optical illusions or atmospheric phenomena" but then added that, "some Military officials are seriously considering the possibility of interplanetary ships." (unsupported)
The CIA started their own internal scientific review the following day. Some CIA scientists were also seriously considering the ETH. An early memo from August was very skeptical, but also added, "...as long as a series of reports remains 'unexplainable' (interplanetary aspects and alien origin not being thoroughly excluded from consideration) caution requires that intelligence continue coverage of the subject." A report from later that month was similarly skeptical but nevertheless concluded "...sightings of UFOs reported at Los Alamos and Oak Ridge, at a time when the background radiation count had risen inexplicably. Here we run out of even 'blue yonder' explanations that might be tenable, and we still are left with numbers of incredible reports from credible observers." A December 1952 memo from the Assistant CIA Director of Scientific Intelligence (O/SI) was much more urgent: "...the reports of incidents convince us that there is something going on that must have immediate attention. Sightings of unexplained objects at great altitudes and traveling at highs speeds in the vicinity of U.S. defense installation are of such nature that they are not attributable to natural phenomena or known types of aerial vehicles." Some of the memos also made it clear that CIA interest in the subject was not to be made public, partly in fear of possible public panic. (Good, 331–335)
The CIA organized the January 1953 Robertson Panel of scientists to debunk the data collected by the Air Force's Project Blue Book. This included an engineering analysis of UFO maneuvers by Blue Book (including a motion picture film analysis by Naval scientists) that had concluded UFOs were under intelligent control and likely extraterrestrial. (ref: Dolan, 189; Good, 287, 337; Ruppelt, Chapt. 16)
Extraterrestrial "believers" within Project Blue Book including Major Dewey Fournet, in charge of the engineering analysis of UFO motion.[citation needed] Director Edward J. Ruppelt is also thought to have held these views, though expressed in private, not public.[citation needed] Another defector from the official Air Force party line was consultant Dr. J. Allen Hynek, who started out as a staunch skeptic. After 20 years of investigation, he changed positions and generally supported the ETH. He became the most publicly known UFO advocate scientist in the 1970s and 1980s.
The first CIA Director, Vice Admiral Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter, stated in a signed statement to Congress, also reported in the New York Times, February 28, 1960, "It is time for the truth to be brought out... Behind the scenes high-ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned about the UFOs. However, through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe the unknown flying objects are nonsense... I urge immediate Congressional action to reduce the dangers from secrecy about unidentified flying objects." In 1962, in his letter of resignation from NICAP, he told director Donald Keyhoe, "I know the UFOs are not U.S. or Soviet devices. All we can do now is wait for some actions by the UFOs." (ref:Good, 347)
Although the 1968 Condon Report came to a negative conclusion (written by Condon), it is known that many members of the study strongly disagreed with Condon's methods and biases. Most quit the project in disgust or were fired for insubordination. A few became ETH supporters. Perhaps the best known example is Dr. David Saunders, who in his 1968 book UFOs? Yes lambasted Condon for extreme bias and ignoring or misrepresenting critical evidence. Saunders wrote, "It is clear... that the sightings have been going on for too long to explain in terms of straightforward terrestrial intelligence. It's in this sense that ETI (Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) stands as the `least implausible' explanation of `real UFOs'." (unsourced)
Jean-Jacques Velasco, the head of the official French UFO investigation SEPRA, wrote a book in 2005 saying that 14% of the 5800 cases studied by SEPRA were utterly inexplicable and extraterrestrial in origin.[citation needed]Yves Sillard, the head of the new official French UFO investigation GEIPAN and former head of the French space agency CNES, echoes Velasco's comments and adds the U.S. is guilty of covering up this information.[citation needed] Again, this isn't the official public posture of SEPRA, CNES, or the French government. (CNES recently placed their 5800 case files on the Internet starting March 2007.) (unsourced)
Some of the above probably belong somewhere, but a mass of assorted ETH supporters spread across sixty years isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article written according to the neutral point of view. --TS23:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
FAR TOO MUCH HAS BEEN WRITTEN ABOUT UFOs THE PROOF HAS BEEN WITH US !!! CHECK THE 1952 WASHINGTON FLYOVER ===RECORDED ON RADAR AND LIVE VISUAL BY HUNDREDS THERE IS NO ROOM FOR DEBATE face it they have been here for 12 thousand years.
There's a lot of "top secret" stuff whizzing around, most of it speculative intelligence, primary source, unassessed for quality in the form presented, and then dug up by ufologists who lack the perspective to distinguish it from fact.
A good example of this kind of digging, which has clearly influenced the writing of this article, is Timothy Good's Above Top Secret. Good digs out internal memos written by members of the military and government agencies who say "golly, we don't know what it is, maybe it's aliens" and presents them to our marvelling eyes. Another thing Good's book lacks is empirical evidence.
Towards Good, in particular, I would be inclined to adopt a "less is more" approach. He has for the most part dug out documents that, because of their obscurity, cannot be said to have influenced thinking on UFOs in a big way. His magnum opus is relevant solely in the context that it shows that the US government and many other governments have historically had as little clue about the nature of some UFO sightings as the general public.
There are some works that have been neglected. Condon in particular has been so thoroughly denigrated by ufologists that the devastating effect that study had on the scientific study of unidentified flying objects is not brought out in this article. Some works have been misrpresented (I removed one of the most egregious examples, above, a French study that purportedly held the extraterrestrial hypothesis up as the most satisfactory one for the evidence, when in fact it said the exact opposite.) There's a lot of work to do before this article can be considered remotely neutral. --TS03:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Tony, please READ the COMETA report. I will begin to add excerpts as time permits. You have completely misread the sentence, as will be clear to anyone who reads the whole section. Here is the comment in its context:
They demonstrate the almost certain physical reality of completely unknown flying objects with remarkable flight performances and noiselessness, apparently operated by intelligent [beings] … Secret craft definitely of early origins (drones, stealth aircraft, etc.) can only explain a minority of cases. If we go back far enough in time, we clearly perceive the limits of this explanation.
Thus we are forced to resort other hypotheses. Some can neither be confirmed nor invalidated. They are therefore not scientific, and, certainly, it is very difficult to scientifically study rare, elusive, and chance phenomena, when science is based above all on experiments and their reproducibility. However, the example of meteorites shows that this type of phenomenon can nevertheless end up being accepted by the scientific community after centuries of doubt and rejection.
A single hypothesis sufficiently takes into account the facts and, for the most part, only calls for present-day science. It is the hypothesis of extraterrestrial visitors. Advanced of 1947 by certain U.S. military personnel, today it is popular worldwide …
The extraterrestrial hypothesis is far from the best scientific hypothesis. It certainly has not been categorically proven, but strong presumptions exist in its favour … (COMETA report, p. 71, emphasis added)
The authors mean that it is not the "best scientific hypothesis" in comparison with many other scientific hypothesis due to the nature of the phenomenon and the difficulty of formulating the hypothesis. It is patently clear from the statement in bold the authors do not mean it is not the best scientific hypothesis to explain the data. This is made abundantly clear by the authors, as is the conclusion in favour of the extraterrestrial hypothesis. I have re-instated the section. If you wish to present couter-evidence, do so. Please show respect for the work of wikipedia editors. Please check sources before deleting cited material. I'll assume good faith, and that this is an honest mistake, but your actions indicate at best a lax dilettante. Holon (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
You appear to be trying to claim that the writers of the COMETA report meant the exact opposite of what they said. Please reconsider. --TS12:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you actually serious Tony? They said, as I quoted, A single hypothesis sufficiently takes into account the facts and, for the most part, only calls for present-day science. It is the hypothesis of extraterrestrial visitors. Read the report, which takes for granted the validity of the hypothesis to the degree that it discusses in some detail the implications of this. I suggest you include any information you think appropriate to balance what is there (i.e. all of the sources), according to WP:Weight. We can debate the COMETA and I can provide numerous excerpts that make the conclusions unambiguously clear. If really necessary, I will try to find time to provide examples of sources, in featured articles on important topics, that draw on sources that are similar in terms of Wikepedia's criteria. I would welcome debate on this point to draw badly needed attention to this page, and WP:Mediation, though only should it really become necessary. Please consider my remarks about your editing. Cheers Holon (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
If not clear, everyting doubly indented above after 'context:' is verbatim from the COMETA report. Please consult the report if you are in any doubt. Holon (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I mean what I say and I assume that the writers of COMETA also meant what they said when they wrote that the ETH was "far from the best scientific hypothesis". This is why I removed in this edit the false declaration that COMETA concluded that the ETH was "the best hypothesis for the unexplained cases." You falsely accuse me of not reading or misreading the report. I have read it. That is what it says.
On the matter of weight, I would not be inclined to give COMETA any great weight. It has no standing as science. --TS13:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Please provide verifiable citation that it has "no standing as science". This is merely your opinion, which has no bearing on the article. What do you think the authors mean when they say [The extraterrestrial hypothesis]] certainly has not been categorically proven, but strong presumptions exist in its favour … ? What do you think the authors mean, in a report about UFOs and Defense, by: A single hypothesis sufficiently takes into account the facts and, for the most part, only calls for present-day science. It is the hypothesis of extraterrestrial visitors. If you have read the report, you do not understand it. Why did you read something that you believe "has no standing in science"? Did you read it all? If need be, I will provide numerous excerpts here to make the point, and selected ones in the body so the reader can determine the meaning. Holon (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I will also, if necessary, seek the French version and seek expert translation from a native speaker if necessary. Holon (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
'Please provide verifiable citation that it has "no standing as science".' My turn to ask if you are serious. Absence of peer review.
You're still falsely claiming that I have not read the COMETA report or have misread it. I have not. The report categorically states that ETH is "far from the best scientific hypothesis." It does not state anywhere that it is the best. It does state that it is far from the best. This is pretty conclusive. The statement that COMETA concluded that it was the best hypothesis was categorically incorrect and I removed it. --TS13:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
You have consistently failed to answer every question I have asked in order to seek resolution. I have three more. 1) Are you saying that all documents that have standing as science must be peer-reviewed to qualify as such? 2) Are you saying that all documents that have standing as science are peer-reviewed? 3) Are you saying, in any case, that whether this document has "standing as science" is the only Wikipedia criterion relevant to its citation as a source on this topic? Again, to be very clear, I am seeking resolution of these matters editor to editor. Holon (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
To weigh in, I would in fact say that if something is not published anywhere in peer reviewed mainstream scientific journals then it cannot possibly begin to qualify as having mainstream scientific acceptance. Furthermore, in that case it has not yet been shown to pass almost the only test available determining whether it even merits mainstream consideration. Essentially, if something purports to be science but is not published in a mainstream peer reviewed journal, it should not be treated as science on Wikipedia since there is no way of validating it as such. Locke9k (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree it cannot be argued there is mainstream "acceptance". On whether it merits mainstream consideration, we can only cite sources on this point. The fact it hasn't received mainstream attention doesn't automatically imply it doesn't merit attention given numerous scientists have argued that it does. However, if you have a prominent and verifiable source that states the problem doesn't merit consideration, please add it. I have added the closest thing I have available, based on the statement by Sagan that "Essentially all the UFOS cases were anecdotes, something asserted". Although this claim is, itself, simply asserted, Sagan was a member of the US Air Force Scientific Advisroy Board committee that investigaged "Project Bluebook". Given this, other involvement, and his SETI involvement, I would think he is one of the most relevant mainstream scientists to refer to. I do not accept the arguments that something is only science if it is published in a mainstream peer reviewed journal. There are literally millions of patents for oerational technologies and devices that are quite deliberately not published in mainstream outlets. Was AC power generation not mainstream when Tesla had prototype devices but there was nothing published. What about the A-bomb? Only mainstream once it was published! (not detinated?). How about Copernicanism and Darwinism? If it were the mid-1800s, we definitely couldn't claim it is mainstream, but would that imply it didn't warrant attention or would never receive attention? Hardly, the latter would have been speculation. Nevertheless, I agree that unless technical documents etc. can be cited, something shouldn't be treated as science. I don't quite understand all the arguments about whether it is science or not. They're irrelevant. All that is relevant is characterizing the actual state of affairs, using prominent and verifiable sources. That is what we need to do, and that's what I have tried to start. I'd encourage you to add other POV statements if they can be sourced, if you think this will help to achieve NPOV. Holon (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Locke, the statement you seem to want to keep in the intro is a POV assertion that is not cited. I have no problem with making this argument, balanced with counter-arguments. I know the intro needs to be kept as short as possible. Let's discuss. Your claim the sources I have are related to "conspiracy theory" is patently ridiculuous (check the sources please), but I am assuming an error in good faith for now. Holon (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
National Press Club press conference on November 12, 2007
I've moved this one here for discussion too. It doesn't seem to have come to anything, though at the time it might have seemed significant simply because an ex-governor was involved.
On November 12, 2007, Former Arizona Governor Fife Symington moderated a panel of former high-ranking government, aviation and military officials from seven countries at the National Press Club; (ref 1) discussing the UFO topic and governmental investigations. The press conference was open for credentialed media and congressional staff only. (refs 2-6)
The number of references given here for a simple press conference seems grossly excessive. I just don't know whether this belongs in the article at all, and if so, where. --TS06:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Sourcing
We're not making enough use of US, British and French government sources. I mention these three governments because they've been the most forthcoming with information about their investigations of UFOs. We have an immense amount of dubious material from various amateur organizations, but not much from the Air Force and the CIA which have put a large amount online. Large scale studies such as the Condon study are neglected and, to some extent, even seem to be deprecated. We should change this. --TS21:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Explanation of TS's removal of "Support for ETH" section
I've again removed this section. There is very, very little support in the scientific community for the extra-terrestrial hypothesis, it represents a fringe view. To include a large section on support is a glaring abuse of our Neutral point of view policy. --TS13:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
RfC: Section on Support for ETH
As I have remarked elsewhere, there is little or no support in the scientific community for the extra-terrestrial hypothesis, mainly due to lack of empirical evidence. I suggest that the long section on support for the ETH, which mostly relies on Timothy Good's digging in US and UK former secret documents, can be summarised as something like "Timothy Good has found, through Freedom of Information requests, that there there was formerly some interest in the hypothesis." There are some other studies that have provisionally supported the hypothesis (COMETA, for instance) but few peer reviewed scientific studies if any exist in support of the hypothesis and we really should make that clear in my opinion. Giving undue weight to Good misleads the reader as to the credibility of the hypothesis. --TS13:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I have requested input from historians regarding the significance to the topic, prominence of the documents, and appropriate manner of presentation. You seem to be concerned about the scientific merit of positions. If these kinds of concerns are clearly valid, they should be easily verified in numerous sources. These sources should be cited in the article. I have changed the title of the section to focus on the fact these are sources and documents related to the topic. The article certainly should not set up the question as one to be resolved; this is entirely inappropriate. As a reminder, here is the essence of NPOV.
The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides.
There seems to be some 'wishful' thinking going on that this topic should go away as a phonomenon, with historical, military and various other aspects, purely on the basis of perceived mainstream scientific viewpoints (which, in any case, surveyes indicate are far from clear from the article itself). As for weight, there seems to be confusion about the basis for judging weight. The article's focus includes historical, social, military, psychological, technological, atmospheric and astronomical elements, to name a few. Science is most certainly relevant, and input is valuable on any relevant aspects (including sources and documents relating to the "ETH" hypothesis). However, historical, social, military etc. elements are every bit as relevant given many of the highly prominent historical documents are either military or involve input from military sources.
It seems clear the most valuable input, with respect to science, is to cite sources regarding hypotheses and other content that is clear scientific in nature. The relevant section should be as concise as possible, and balanced to reflect verifiable sources on the topic. Wholesale deletion of the work of editors is hardly a solution given the nature of the documents.
I have posed a number of questions above, which have yet to be answered. I have explicitly pointed out their relevance given Wikipedia policy. Cheers Holon (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
An obvious thing to consider is to reduce the section on documents related to the "ETH" to a minimum (perhaps a list prefaced with overview of relevance and contentions in verifiable sources) and to move much of the comment to the article on the ETH, with the appropriate header for the main article. If this is the consensus, let's discuss briefly what is appropriate here. I struggle to see how the ETH can be considered not significant to this article, given the sources. Holon (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree with Holon (if I understand him correctly) that the ETH section should be shortened considerably, with the bulk of the material moved to the ETH article (if it's not already there). TS, while I appreciate the sentiment, 'scientific acceptance' is not the be-all-and-end-all, here. there's a strong cultural mythology built up around ETH that has an important place in this article. I mean, let's be honest: if we removed every trace of ETH from this discussion, what we'd be left with is 'sometimes people see things in the sky that they can't identify'. not much for an article there... --Ludwigs201:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
i think this section should be its own article. there is quite a bit of pertinent info that could be fleshed out more there.
how about something like this:
"Other private or governmental studies, some secret, have concluded in favor of the Extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH), or have had members who disagreed with the official conclusions. These include a Manhattan Project scientist, Top Secret USAF documents, FBI, high-ranking members of the USAF and CIA, amd the governments of West Germany and France."
then it should link to the whole list in its own article. untwirl (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Ridiculous. ETH is not taken seriously by anyone anymore. The sentence you propose is designed to cherry-pick and misconstrue in order to present a claim that there are smart people who believe in it when there in actuality isn't. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Untwirl, sounds a well-informed carefully structured statement. That statement can be supported by a list of all sources in this article, as well as the link to the main article that retains the detail. Holon (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
There is no obvious reason to me why UFOlogy, conspiracy theories, and extraterrestrial hypothesis should each be a giant separate section of its own accord. Taken together, to me there seems to be little doubt that this article gives undue weight to fringe theories. It seems to me that all three should be shortened and possibly merged, and that that there should be considerably more discussion of scientific theories of possible psychological and sociological explanations for reports of UFOs. When deciding whether to include details of each of these 3 fringe sections, the point to remember is that of undue weight. The question is not just whether that detail is important within that fringe theory, but how it affects the weighting of the entire article between the various positions.Locke9k (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
A good example of how these sections should generally be handled is how the 'popular culture' section currently is (although the specifics of that section aren't great). Arguably it is more important from a due weight and also NPOV:fringe theories perspective to heavily address the role of UFO's in popular culture since that is a clearly mainstream view. Yet this section is just a brief summary that also links to the page on this topic. All of the fringe theories in this page should at most do the same to avoid the undue weight problem.Locke9k (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's one more point in response to Holon. If you are arguing that this material is all part of a 'historical perspective', then why is the article structured an written in a way that obscured the fact that almost all of the relevant government investigations and at least quasi-legitimate sources are from decades ago? It seems like the article should be written more along the lines of 'the 40's-70's were the heydey of UFO sightings and serious investigations, but mainstream science and to some degree culture has now moved on.' Locke9k (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Could people who wish to make claims about what "mainstream science" supposedly does or does not say, please use and cite prominent and verifiable sources? If you think the structure can be improved, improve it. Holon (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem (and this is addressed in the policies, guidelines, and essays on pseudoscience and fringe theories) is that mainstream scientific publications often do not spend much time on fringe theories and pseudoscience because, well, they are fringe theories and pseudoscience. I am basically asserting that such a body of publications does not exist and that this material is not part of mainstream science. It is not possible to produce articles that do not exist, nor is it required. The burden is on the proponents of a fringe theory or pseudoscience to produce a significant body of current publications in peer reviewed journals to show that it is part of the mainstream. Locke9k (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
It looks to me like there is a reasonable consensus to at least move this material to Extraterrestrial hypothesis and just give a summary here. I'll move on doing that and then the details of any edits to the list itself can get hashed out on that page.Locke9k (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
News
I am with-drawing from this project. I have had some health issues take me away from Wiki for a long time and I feel I have been gone too long to be of any good for it. Good luck Magnum Serpentine (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Definition of UFO
For the purpose of ref'ing a requested fact I dropped in a paper written by Josef Hynek's that contrasted the Condon Reports usage of UFO (based off Dr. William K. Hartman's definition) to Hynek's own definition of UFO. These are both accepted authorities on the subject.
However there's a great deal more literature discussing the many usages of the acronym. For a much more detailed treatise on the subject I recommend reading this article. Ultimately I think that particular source represents a more current view of the subject and might make for a better ref than this one.[1] --Xtraeme (talk) 06:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
On The Proper Definition of UFO ... by WordShed
UFO:
Acronym for Unidentified Flying Object, originally pronounced yoo-foe as a short form in speech, but more often sounded out like the names of the individual letters U - F - O. The term was coined in 1951 by Captain Edward J. Ruppelt of the United States Air Force for the purpose of providing an official designation for what were then loosely being referred to as flying saucers. and was subsequently defined by the U.S.A.F. as "any airborne object that by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features does not conform to any presently known type of aircraft or missile, or which can not be identified as a known object or phenomenon."
Later, the U.S.A.F. also used the acronyms UFOB ( Unidentified Flying Objects ) and UAO ( Unidentified Aerial Objects ), both synonymous with the original definition of UFO.
PRIMARY REFERENCE:
The Report On Unidentified Flying Objects
Copyright 1956 by Edward J. Ruppelt ( Former Head of USAF Project Blue Book )
Ace Books Inc.
Chapter One, Page 7.
Begin Quote:
"I organized and was chief of the Air Force's Project Blue Book, the special project set up to analyze unidentified flying object, or UFO reports (UFO is the official term I created to replace the words "flying saucers")"
End Quote
COMMENT:
The above is the factual history of the word UFO directly from the person who coined the term and the agency that originally ( and officially ) defined it. To loosely define it as something that "cannot be easily or immediately determined" is not accurate. Additionally, the Wikipedia article as it existed at the time of this discussion entry, goes on to confirm the validity of the above. Please consider amending the introduction of the article to provide consistency, or provide me with proper access so that I can cleanly integrate the necessary changes.
Why is it not accurate to define a UFO as a phenomenon whose cause "cannot be easily or immediately determined"? It sounds a reasonable definition to me. The definition you quote, i.e. that a UFO is an "airborne object", makes the assumptions that it is both airborne and an object. There is no reason why we on Wikipedia should not come up with a better definition. Skeptic2 (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
WordShed
Image
I have removed the woodcut image in history (
A woodcut from 1566 by Hans Glaser depicting the sky over Nuremberg, on April 14, 1561. Some say it shows UFOs, but scientists say this kind of image represents aurora borealis or "sun dogs" (parhelion).
). Since the mainstream view is that this has nothing to do with UFOs, the only place it could even concievably go is in a section on fringe views. As it is it is non-NPOV. Also the caption is problematic. "Some say" without a citation is pretty much unacceptable.Locke9k (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Unrelated info removal
I have removed the following section on Edward Maunder. The essential reason is that based on the longer explanation on his webpage, he actually was not reporting a UFO. According to that description, "he assumed it was some extraordinary auroral phenomenon", which suggests that he used the phrase "a strange celestial visitor" metaphorically. The section in this article appears to misrepresent the event in a way that makes it appear that he actually was claiming to have seen some sort of vehicle. Its also not correctly cited, so even though I know the report was in "the Observatory", which I have access to, there is no way to find the article for further clarification. As the above information suggests that this is not actually about a UFO, I am removing it from the article as being unrelated.
On November 17, 1882, a UFO was observed by astronomerEdward Walter Maunder of the Greenwich Royal Observatory and some other European astronomers. Maunder in The Observatory reported "a strange celestial visitor" that was "disc-shaped", "torpedo-shaped", "spindle-shaped", or "just like a Zeppelin" dirigible (as he described it in 1916). It moved rapidly from horizon to horizon. The sighting was during high auroral activity; therefore Maunder assumed it was some extraordinary auroral phenomenon never before seen and called it an "auroral beam".
Here's the image related to the above segment. Drawing of E. W. Maunder's November 17, 1882 "auroral beam" by astronomer Rand Capron, Guildown Observatory, Surrey, UK, who also observed it.Locke9k (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's one more. The following section describes a sighting of "objects" but the cited reference clearly identifies them as meteors. According to the reference, they were not unidentified. This segment is therefore not relevant to this article. Locke9k (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
On February 28, 1904, there was a sighting by three crew members on the USS Supply 300 miles west of San Francisco, reported by Lt. Frank Schofield, later to become Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Battle Fleet. Schofield wrote of three bright red egg-shaped and circular objects flying in echelon formation that approached beneath the cloud layer, then changed course and "soared" above the clouds, departing directly away from the earth after two to three minutes. The largest had an apparent size of about six suns. [2]
I have reinserted the Schofield sighting. It is a very good example of an early sighting from a high profile source and very well cited, including original log entries, which make it quite clear this wasn't a meteor sighting, even if "identified" as such. Just claiming something has a particular explanation does mean that it does, particularly if the facts don't fit. Real meteors do not last 2 to 3 minutes, they do not fly beneath the clouds, change course, and then soar back up again. Read the original Schofield log entries and report on the Maccabee website: "The meteors were in sight for over two minutes (originally reported as three minutes in the ship's log)... The meteors appeared near the horizon and below the clouds... The near approach of these meteors to the surface and the subsequent flight away from the surface appear to be most remarkable... That they did come below the clouds and soar instead of continuing their southeasterly course is also equally certain, as the angular motion ceased and the color faded as they rose. The clouds, in passing between the meteors and the ship completely obscured the former." Physicist Maccabee discusses all this in great deal in his article, pointing out why this is all clearly inconsistent with a meteor identification. Dr Fil (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I have removed this item from the UFO hypotheses list. It is unreferenced, and nowhere in the article is any information provided to establish that this is a notable or significant fringe view. For all we know, it is just the view of one guy who wrote it. That UFOs are time machines or vehicles from a future Earth, perhaps made by our descendants.Locke9k (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Its not clear what this has to do with either UFO's or with evidence suppression, since it does not mention a UFO and the photos were eventually returned. * In 1965, Rex Heflin took four Polaroid photos of a hat-shaped object. Two years later (1967), two men posing as NORAD agents confiscated three prints. Just as mysteriously, the photos were returned to his mailbox in 1993.[3]Locke9k (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Unreferenced and apparently unrelated to UFOs: * In 1996, the CIA revealed an instance from 1964 where two CIA agents posed as USAF representatives in order to recover a film canister from a Corona spy satellite that had accidentally come down in Venezuela. The event was then publicly dismissed as an unsuccessful NASA space experiment.Locke9k (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Allegations of evidence suppression
I think that this entire section should be moved to the ufo conspiracy theory article. It really is describing various conspiracy theory beliefs and not UFO's in general. Given that there is already a page on this there should just be a short summary of UFO conspiracy theories that is sufficient for the reader to understand what they are and how they relate to the overall picture of UFO's in general. I'm soliciting comment before making this move since it is a large change. Locke9k (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll also add the point that the conspiracy is really given undue weight in this article due to its length, and removing this section would help quite a lot. Locke9k (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
As a side note I removed the following from this section as it contains contentious biographical claims regarding a living person without citation, something that is seriously against wikipedia policy and calls for immediate removal. I am including it here in case someone can source it an reintroduce it. * Astronomer Jacques Vallee, a prominent UFOlogist, reported that in 1961 he witnessed the destruction of the tracking tapes of unknown objects orbiting the Earth. (However, Vallee indicated that this didn't happen because of government pressure but because the senior astronomers involved didn't want to deal with the implications.)Locke9k (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's another one. There is nothing in the attached reference about Gordon Cooper whatsoever, and the only reference on the general subject contained in the Gordon Cooper page does not agree with this account. If someone can find reliable sources and cite them this could possibly be corrected and reintroduced: AstronautGordon Cooper reported suppression of a flying saucer movie filmed in high clarity by two Edwards AFB range photographers on May 3, 1957. Cooper said he viewed developed negatives of the object, clearly showing a dish-like object with a dome on top and something like holes or ports in the dome. The photographers and another witness, when later interviewed by Dr. James McDonald, confirmed the story. Cooper said military authorities then picked up the film and neither he nor the photographers ever heard what happened to it. The incident was also reported in a few newspapers, such as the Los Angeles Times. The official explanation, however, was that the photographers had filmed a weather balloon distorted by hot desert air.[4][failed verification]Locke9k (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
If "black triangle (UFO)" is included in the "See also" section, why not also "green fireball"?
The green fireballs already have an article, just like the black triangles do, I would think green fireballs should be linked from this article as well.
I have removed the following from the intro because it cites only fringe POV sources w/o attribution. It clearly doesnt belong there. Perhaps it could be readded in one of the fringe sections, but right now there is no clear place for it. ...and tens of thousands of such reports have been catalogued.[5]Locke9k (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
NPOV intro
There seems to be some contention over this line in the intro: "Although various conspiracy theories and pseudosciences revolve around UFO sightings, no mainstream scientific support for non-natural explanations of UFOs has emerged." Holon has asserted that this line requires citation. However the main point for this statement is that there is no current mainstream scientific publication on this, because its not taken seriously enough by the scientific community to warrant serious investigation. I will quote from the arbcom decision on this topic: "Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals." Thus the burden is on proponents of this subject to provide citations. The present line simply states that there is a lack of such sources. If someone can produce a current body of scientific publication that falls into the lines delineated above, the statement could then be removed. Until then, it is required for NPOV and should stay. Locke9k (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
A second edit to this by Holon has been summarized as "Attempt to characterize the status of mainstream scientific and official studies with reference to sources -- I would include ref to lack of mainstream acceptance if sourced -- please include if can" The line has been changed to "There is little mainstream scientific literature on UFOs." I'm trying to avoid any appearance of an edit war here, so before I revert this I'll offer another opportunity for real discussion. The statement that there is 'little mainstream scientific literature' implies that there is in fact some. If you wish to make that assertion, please include citations. The previous wording reflected the fact that this article contains no current citations of support from peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals. Based on the citations presently in the body of this article, it is a factual statement. I do not believe that it is possible to disprove as I am unable after some searching to find any such publications. Furthermore, as it is a negative statement it is clearly not possible logically for there to be a citation supporting it - the burden lies upon those who wish to claim that some such support exists. I'll give this a few hours or a day to get a response; if there is one I will again revert and ask that you come here and discuss before changing the central point of the statement. Locke9k (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually I am going to go ahead and restore the original line. This one seems clearly inferior, and given that I have placed a discussion on the talk page with some strong points it seems reasonable to expect some discussion before making these sorts of edits. Please address my points above or otherwise respond before again eliminating the central points made by this line. Locke9k (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, apologies -- I did not see your new comments here. As I said above, let's say there is no mainstream support, if there is a prominent and vefifiable scientific source in which this, or something to the effect is stated. I simply want the actual history of the scientific study to be properly represented -- it is something I have dedicated a lot of time and energy on understanding personally. Dismissive comments are easy, but potentially misleading. I'll fully support comments that are substantiated by sources. Holon (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your standpoint, but thats just not how this works. If there are no current scientific publications regarding a subject, that means that there is no scientific support for it. It is then appropriate to place that information in the intro. The burden is not on me to show that there 'is no mainstream scientific support'. Such a reference virtually never exists, because mainstream science doesn't take the time to write a body of such articles on something that it doesn't consider serious enough to be worthy of research. The burden falls on those wishing to claim that there is any such support. I believe that there was once such investigation, but that belongs in the history section. There shouldn't be an extensive detailed discussion of that in the intro. Locke9k (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree there is no mainstream literature that supports most specific claims regarding UFOs that have been made. Your remark about a body of articles is something of a strawman: nothing I said implied the need for a body of articles; only prominent and verifiable sources. First, numerous members of the AAAS had very heated discussions about the 1969 AAAS symposium [2]. Second, the issues had engendered enormous public interest, which was the focus of some of the discussions by the AAAS members. Third, militaries across the world have spent many millions of dollars on scientific studies, and the military is the largest single source of funding for science. Therefore, it cannot be argued that the phenomenon has never attracted the attention of scientists. Whatever one's position, the question of the existence of extraterrestrial life and intelligence is indisputably of scientific importance, as proponents of SETI argue. Numerous questions that have justified serious attention have spawned theories that were subsequently discredited, superseded or which lost the attention of scientists. These include Lamarckism, aether-based theories, the steady-state theory, the spontaneous generation theory, etc. etc. Contrary to your remarks, these theories did attract comment in mainstream scientific literature (in some cases an enormous amount). Not surprisingly given the significance of the question itself, there are comments on the record by scientists, like Donald Howard Menzel. No need for a body of articles: one or two will do to achieve NPOV. Finally, and more importantly, this is again seems to be degenerating into a debate about whether the topic is scientific. My aim is to accurately characterize both the history and current state-of-affairs with respect to scientific studies, debate, and current "official" and scientific status. Again, I agree entirely that the current status is that there is no mainstream literature that supports many specific claims in the body of the article. However, simply stating this on its own provides the reader with no context. There is a scientific context, and it can be provided, then it can be balanced to achieve NPOV in as much as possible. I agree it needs balancing. As I have said, there seems to be wishful thinking that the phenomenon will go away, with its many facets, on the ostensible basis that providing verifiable facts about the scientific history and context is somehow itself 'unscientific'. The point of Wikipedia is to provide verifiable information on the topic from prominent sources that characterize the topic. Holon (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
On a related issue, re-reading the introduction, I can see how you perceived it to have conspiracy connotations. I can assure you they were quite unintentional; I was simply attempting to state verifiable facts from prominent sources. This is not an article to leave room unnecessary room for such interpretation, and so edits are clearly required. The intro should also be as short as possible, but not so short that it containts POV statements without context. The previous statement read to me as if: "you're a nut if you even wonder about this topic". NPOV is presenting different POVs, verified, not eliminating them. Holon (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Also the additional material added to the intro clearly doesnt belong there, although it might be able to be worked in elsewhere. It is clearly POV and also somewhat rambling and unfocused. The intro should be short, to the point, and NPOV. Locke9k (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I have moved this material to the conspiracy theory section, where it seems to fit best. It may still need some massaging to be more coherent. Thanks for the contribution. Locke9k (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I have abbreviated the intro considerably, with a view to retaining the original statement about lack of mainstream support, with reference to verifiable sources. Let me know what you think: the more debate the better, as far as I'm concerned. I moved the content I had added to the intro to the beginning of the investigations section. On that latter, a limitation is that it is quite anglo/americocentric, but this is hard to avoid without input from relevant editors. I appreciate some may perceive it to express a POV, and invite opposing POVs using cited material.
My overriding concern is that there are several problems with the original statement in the intro: "Although various conspiracy theories and pseudosciences revolve around UFO sightings, no mainstream scientific support for non-natural explanations of UFOs has emerged."
1. It is a strong POV statement that was unsourced. The stonger the POV, the more important it is to verify the statement.
2. The seamless connection with conspiracy theories and pseudosciences ignores the serious attention the topic received at a certain time, and the fact that the historical events leading to the current status are ignored
I don't want to get into it in the intro, but I defny anyone to demonstrate there is a consensus on the subject among scientists. The lack of attention does imply lack of support, but it does not imply a consensus that scientific study is unwarranted. Historical facts demonstrate no such consensus was reached before the Condon report was published, and polls indicate there was no consensus afterward (certainly not in the strong sense of the word). This is the reason the context needs to be there to avoid speculative inferences, implicit or explicit, about the reasons for lack of mainstream scientific study and reports. It is also the reason I am asking that statments that might be taken by a reader to imply consensus are verified, so the reader can properly evaluate them in context.Holon (talk) 10:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC) I forgot an important point -- people like to argue this is ancient history. The problem is that if no scientific consensus was reached by 1969, and no serious attention has been paid to the topic, there is no basis for inferring contemporary consensus that can't be contested to some extent. Yes, things have changed, etc. etc. but that is as good a reason to re-visit data as it is for the usual inferences. Cheers. Holon (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Once again I have to disagree with your approach to this. What you are saying just does not accurately represent the way science works. The benchmark of there even being a possibility of scientific support for a subject is peer-reviewed publications in mainstream scientific journals. There are no links to such publications in this article, even going back to the 'heydey' of UFO research by governments. Second, even if such articles existed at that time, that still doesn't suffice. When some theories are proposed within the scientific community by publication in journals, one of three things happens. First, it could be accepted and more science could be built upon it. In that case there will be many articles referencing the original ones as their base is built upon. Second, it could be fairly quickly disproven or discarded as not really offering a good explanation or making a real contribution to science. In that case, you won't see a significant number of publications on the topic or referencing the original papers after some point at which the topic has been discarded. Third, the topic will become a subject of investigation in order to learn more about it and determine which of the first two categories it should fall into. In this case, there will be many more papers on the topic, most likely referencing the early ones, after which time one of the first two things will happen. What this means is that if there is no significant body of peer reviewed publications on a topic, then it has either been discarded or rejected by the scientific community, or it never was considered fully scientific and published in peer reviewed journals in the first place. There is no way around this. Thus, if there are no peer reviewed papers on a topic, then it is appropriate to state that " no mainstream scientific support for non-natural explanations of UFOs has emerged." Frankly, I would be inclined to removed the word "mainstream" from this quote (since that is actually the only kind of science) but I have left in in for now to ease the debate.
The point is, if you want to soften this statement, it is incumbent upon you to produce articles to the contrary. Not the other way around. To imply that 'science just hasn't ruled on this yet' simply isnt true. I'll direct you to wikipedia policy on neutral point of view in relation to pseudoscience or fringe theories. The possible categories into which a subject like this can fall are: Obvious pseudoscience, Generally considered pseudoscience, Questionable science, and Alternative theoretical formulations. This subject pretty clearly falls into "Generally considered pseudoscience. It does not meet the criterion for "Questionable science", which is "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." Non-prosaic explanations of UFOs do not have a substantial following within the scientific community. See my above argument in this paragraph: if they did have such a following, it would be reflected in present mainstream peer reviewed publications.Locke9k (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
With this in mind, rather than reverting I have tried another new wording of this line in the intro. We'll see how it goes. Rather than just reverting it please address the points above before change the line's content. Locke9k (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Your hackneyed views about the "way science works" have been disputed too many times to need response here. See the scientific method, and criticisms of peer-review. It always amuses me the way people insist science works in a certain way, blissfully ignorant of the fact they've just made an empirically testable assertion. Do some homework before presuming to tell people "how science works".
Here is another example of the above. Halon has added: "Nevertheless, historically there has been controversy among prominent scientists, including members of the AAAS, regarding whether UFOs warrant serious scientific investigation. [6][7][8] " These references are totally inadequate to make this statement. You simply cannot use references to websites that promote fringe views of UFOs to support the contention that there is scientific debate. As per the above guideline, its totally unacceptable. Wikipedia requires meainstream sources to establish the level of acceptance and notability of a fringe theory or pseudoscience. This is totally unambiguous in the relevant policies and guidelines as I have linked above. Locke9k (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
How is a statement to the House Committee on Science an Astronautics "fringe views"? The other source, from a PhD, meticulously cites historical correspondence and events, including meetings and so on, involving AAAS member. The committee who wrote the COMETA report comprises accomplished high-level French members, from generals to engineers and other scientists (several of whom have PhDs). The preamble was by a past President of the National Center for Space Studies. Are you seriously arguing this is not a prominent and reliable source? If past members of NASA and intelligence organisations wrote such a report, would this be debated? It was sent by this accomplished group to the French president. In any case, there are sources in Science magazine and other publications that attest to the controversy. It seems you are simply ill-informed and have the bizarre notion that something cannot be controversial in science unless there is agreement in a body of scientific literature after the fact! Holon (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC) I have now addded ref to the 134th meeting of the AAAS, which I think we can agree is "mainstream". Please be aware the COMETA report was itself reported in (i) L'express, (ii) Irish Indepdent, (iii) Boston Globe. Lastly, I have added a reference to UFOs: A Scientific Debate which presents a collection of AAAS symposium presentation that constitutes a detailed chronicle of the controversy at the time. I am at a loss even to understand your resistance to simply say that there has been controversy among some scientists. It really is indisputable. Pleae refer to the sources and check the historical facts if you want to dispute further. Holon (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
One of my central problems with the present wording is the statement that UFOs have recieved 'little support' in mainstream scientific literature. To me this doesn't actually have a clear meaning. Since UFOs are just things in the sky that someone can't identify as per the definition in this page, it doesn't really make sense to say that they receive little 'support'. I think that the more accurate statement is that non-prosaic explanations of UFO's have received very little attention or support. Also, temporarily conceding for the sake of argument the debate over whether these are legitimate sources, from your present wording it seems to be saying that the sources are just arguing over whether there should be investigation. It does not seem like they are actually supporting non-prosaic explanations. Wouldn't it therefore be better at a minimum to change the wording to "Non-prosaic explanations for UFOs have received very little attention or support in mainstream scientific literature"? Also, either way, I think it would make sense to restore something to the effect of "various conspiracy theories and pseudosciences revolve around UFO sightings" because that is certainly an important part of the overall picture of the role of the UFO phenomenon in culture. Aside from that, I'll take a look at the references and consider your arguments before I weigh in any more on whether larger changes or needed or whether we are at least approaching a pretty good NPOV wording. Let me know what you think of the above.Locke9k (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair point. What it means to me, having followed the subject for more years than is really warranted, is that mainstream science has not deemed it a subject worth spending any serious time or money on. I know a number of pretty high-powered scientists, entirely open-minded, who have looked into the subject of UFOs as a matter of personal interest and concluded that it is not worthy of further time or effort, even as a personal hobby. When governments have commissioned reports, such as the UK's secret-at-the-time Condign Report, the conclusion has been the same. I find it increasingly unlikely that amateur investigators are going to come up with something of significance that these high-powered brains have missed. Belief in UFOs is, I would strongly suggest, a cultural phenomenon akin to a religious belief and should be treated as such. Skeptic2 (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
You say you've followed the subject. Have you read the contents of the Condon report? You state your opinion about the reason science has ignored the phenomenon. Here's another from scientist Jacques Valleé, who agrees with your conclusion and some, but not all of the reasons: "...there is a simple reason for the absence of open academic interest in the UFO phenomenon ... it is not lack of evidence ... On the contrrary. ... The evidence that have been obtained by the major powers is so valid and it has such devastating impolications for future military systems that the decision has been made to keep it under look and key, and to entrust its study only to highly specialized teams with selected, comparetmented acces. In my opinion, the work of these teams is doomed to failure, as it has been since 1953, in spite of all the resrouces behind it and in spite of the absurd disinformation operation that surrounds it to keep it secure ... The UFO phenomenon cannot be compartmentalized. It is global in nature and touches every part of human knowledge -- from folklore to astrophysics, from ethnology to microwaves, from particles to parapsychology." Confrontations, 1990. pp. 225-6. Keep in mind he does not support "ETH"; at least not in the standard forms in which it is typically swallowed and regurgitated. I'm highly skeptical of his own hypotheses, but then he stresses they are conjectures. At the end of the day, he has personally conducted methodical research and has deliberately distanced himself from UFOlogy: for these reasons, I can't help but listen carefully to what he has to say after, all of these years. Given he spent 10 years visiting sites across the globe, has organized analysis of physical data, etc. etc., I'd listen to him before an army of arm-chair theorists who claim to have 'followed' the subject at arm's length. As Valleé also argues: there's a tendency to polarize and oversimplify the topic: either a) aliens are visiting us, watching us and conducting experiments or b) there is strictly nothing more than prosaic explanations of sightings. "When a so-called expert tells [a witness] the object must have been the moon or a mirage, he is really teaching the public that science is impotent or unwilling to pursue the study of the unknown. He is contributing to the growth of irrational movements in modern society" (p. 21). In my view, it's healthy to be skeptical of the believers in the "standard ETH" and equally skeptical of the pseudo-skeptics, who have never spoken to a witness, never studied evidence first-hand, and most of the time have not even read the more reliable primary sources by scientists who have studied evidence first-hand. Ultimately, neither of our opinions are particularly relevant to the article -- the point is that falling into the trap of oversimplification of a very complex topic does not lead to a high-quality NPOV article. Is it not harder to keep an open, yet genuinely skeptical and objective stance, than to simply adopt one of the simplistic polar stances? Holon (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I fully agree it should be "non-prosaic explanations for UFOs have received little attention or support in scientific literature" and you're right the wording does not make sense given the definition above (which seems to have changed from a while back?). I also fully agree that we should restore something about conspiracy theories and pseudo-sciences. I only disagree with it being rolled into a single statement that seems to imply "only nuts would, or ever have historically, considered the possibility of non-prosaic explanations". I argue there should be a separation between (i) the current scientific status and the history and context leading to it, on the one hand, and (ii) the pseudoscience and conspiracy theory that has flourished, on the other hand. We can't get into the history in the intro, but the article goes into it in some depth. There's a "cross-over" between the US Air Force investigations and Academia at the point of the University of Colorado project, in the U.S. The people involved in historical events regarding the scienitific status of the problem were not involved in pseudoscience. That is, people like Dr Allen Hynek, Prof James E. McDonald, Peter Sturrock (emeritus prof Phys, Stanford), Clyde Tombaugh, Hermann Oberth, Michael D. Swords, and so on are hardly responsible for pseudoscience. McDonald expressly stated he did not subscribed to conspiracy theories. All the same, I certainly wouldn't object to statements to the effect that "most scientists consider the study of non-prosaic explanations of UFOs to be pseudoscience" if the statements were sourced. I don't know of sources. The issue is that we can't have our cake and eat it too, when it comes to the science. We can't say: nobody looked at it ... and, there's a scientific consensus. How can a consensus be built through normal scientific processes if the topic never received attention? What we can say is that it didn't recieve serious attention, and give a sense to the reader that there was debate. Hope that gives the sense of what I hope to achieve but, as always, open to detabe. Thanks. Holon (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Context for readers
There needs to be sufficient context for a reader of the article regarding the scientific status of the problem and how that status came to be. The statement in the intro regarding Science was:
"Although various conspiracy theories and pseudosciences revolve around UFO sightings, no mainstream scientific support for non-natural explanations of UFOs has emerged."
"Emerge" from where? Outside of science? Within? If the latter, did scientists look at empirical data? If not, why not? If so, did scientists unamimously declare that the question did not merit study on the basis of specific studies? If so, where is the verified source to say so? If not, did they ignore the question? Was there any debate about whether the topic deserved investigation?
The scientific status has a history and context, and it needs to be provided. By all means, include reference to pseudoscience and conspiracy theory, but the above statement was terribly inadequate for providing the reader with sufficient context in an encyclopaedic article. Holon (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
^ One of the largest maintained databases, UFOCAT, listed 172,000 sightings as of 2003, [3][4] while the National UFO Reporting Center (NUFORC) has collected over 40,000 reports since 1998. [5]
^McDonald, James. E. (1968). Statement on Unidentified Flying Objects submitted to the House Committee on Science and Astronautics at July 29, 1968, Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects, Rayburn Bldg., Washington, D.D.
