Talk:Unidentified flying object/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Comment

I just returned from vacation to discover that my recently-hired assistant has made a mess in my name while I was gone, so let my start by apologizing for what has transpired.

I like the layout for what you guys have done with the whole UFO entry here in wikipedia. Very substantive for an elusive topic.

I did notice that there is not much on man made flying saucers.

I can appreciate the emphasis on the unknown. What kind of things do you think would make a fair posting in in regard to man-made UFO's?

Regards, Luke Fortune ?Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukefortune (talk ? contribs) 22:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent sighting

this is a peace of $hit Should this be included?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/02/ufo.sighting.ap/index.html

regards,David

This should be included, I think. http://www.ufoseek.com/news/ I'm surpriced it is not already there.

Miro

?The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.164.100 (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Look at the picture, you see a meandering trail of exhaust. Obviously it's a picture of a TOY.

Unanymous. U guys are doing a great job.Look on the bottom of this comment for a few places to research. Whenever i am researching about this stuuf, people, the 1st thing they jump to is, oh it's fake it isn't real. And at times, not all the times i tell them, they can't say anything for many reasons. An example is, they can't say it's fake becaue they do not research it as much as other people do, and sometimes i tell em, if God created this huge universe, which has been scientifically proven it's huge, how can there not be other life?If you believe in God you should know how powerful he is, so powerful he can take your life in a second. People may say oh but the bible doesn't mention anything about other life. Well guess what, there are plenty of different types of bibles. For example, some Jews, or other people don't belive there was a Jesus.another thing people should realize is how much info is out there. Those of you who believe in other life,(and it doesn't have to be only aliens), my congrats because you give alot of ufo and other life believers hope,plus you help them know they aren't the only believers. Well here are a few good sights for you guys to do research, or just go to a library they have plenty of books about ufos in history, newspaper articles, etc. The library in downtown miami is a good resource. Oh one more thing, yes there are man made ufos, the militairy has tried and are probably still making, but hey the ufo sighting and the 4 alien bodies came 1st.Hey, spread the word and don't be embarrased, feel proud of what is, and for some people,may be true.Hey I'm a believer and I'm proud. Here are a few web sights.

www.ufoevidence.org if you want info on area 51,Aka dreamland, go to, www.dreamlandresort.com www.ufocasebook.com for a variety of pictures.The pictures are great. www.unexplainedresearch.com or simply go to google and type in what you would like to find out, and i suggest going to you tube for a variety of videos.Very few are fake, but I'm certain many of you can determine.Enjoy, and don't stop believing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.141.220 (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Need for skepticism

This needs to be written by someone who doesn't study UFOs. It should be done from a mainstream viewpoint. By calling some sightings "hoaxes", it's being implied that the other ones are real. There needs to be a section which makes the debunking more prominent, instead of just writing it off as a minority. 23% is NOT a majority. ?Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.100.165 (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have expanded the section on Explanations and Opinions to include broader skeptical views. I would also like to point out the possible misuse of the word 'inexplicable' in this article. It and 'unexplained' do not mean the same thing; concluding that something is inexplicable implies genuine and deserved bafflement. It is not clear whether the French government actually described about 14% of 5800 cases as "inexplicable" or whether they merely meant that there was simply a lack of data available to explain these incidents. Could this be clarified - and has there been similar possible misuse of these terms elsewhere? Rikstar 00:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The French GEPAN/SEPRA studies dumped cases with "lack of data" or insufficient information into a separate category. About half of the total cases could definitely or probably be identified, whereas about 14% of all cases with sufficient data could not be explained with any possible conventional explanation, i.e., they were indeed "inexplicable". Thus the cases with insufficient information formed about a third of all case and were not included in either the identified or unidentified categories.

Regarding your addition of more skeptical viewpoint, all I see is what I would describe as a totally irrelevant paragraph expressing your personal opinion there are too many books about the paranormal and people try to make money from them. What does this have to do with unidentified flying objects? People also try to make money writing badly written and popular accounts on WWII, astronomy, etc. So what? That doesn't somehow negate the core of information about these various subjects.

Frankly, I think the paragraph is totally off topic and NPOV and should be deleted ASAP. Dr Fil 00:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Heres a paragraph on the study that makes the French statistics a little clearer. Note that cases lacking data are around 41% of the cases and are in a separate category. About 46% have definite or probable explanations, and 12.5%, according to this article, (I previously saw 13.5% or ~14%) are considered unidentified and "inexplicable." Source: [1]

"Yet the statistics that Velasco has made public are eloquent. Since, 1977, Sepra has received some 6,000 reports of alleged UFO sightings. Of these, 110 are from civil or military aircraft crew, and the rest from ordinary French people who have almost invariably contacted their local gendarmerie. In 21.3 per cent of cases there is a clear, indisputable and banal explanation: a firework display, a novel lighting system involving a luminous balloon, a cloud above the Pyrenees that is shaped like a flying saucer. In 24.9 per cent there is a probable explanation, and in 41.3 per cent the information is too vague to be of use. But in 12.5 per cent of cases "about 750 sightings since 1977" the evidence is precise, detailed and inexplicable, and is thus categorised as an unidentified phenomenon." Dr Fil 00:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Dr Fil: The difference between WWII, astronomy, etc. and UFOs is... the former do or did really exist, whilst UFOs, as a paranormal entity, might not. The sociological, psychological and cultural implications of this are inevitably tied up with many things; like human needs and the nature and availability of information to meet those needs. Which is what some editors see as a legitimate point to make in offering alternatives to paranormal explanations. UFOs could be a cultural rather than a 'nuts-and-bolts' phenomenon, boosted and perpetuated by human vested interests. Psychoanalyst Carl Jung himself noted how the media seized on out-of-context quotes or misunderstood his theories about UFOs ("Jung believes in flying saucers!!"), but when he asked the media to publish corrections (which showed his real views were much more mundane), nobody was interested. This is a real example of cultural bias. IF UFOs 'do not exist', the existence of such a massive body of UFO works (especially the sensationalist stuff) becomes something of an enigma in itself, requiring an explanation of the socio-cultural variety. It is this that my contribution touched upon. I do wish I could have made this clearer without writing a thesis on the matter.

I am surprised any fair-minded editor would think such an observation "is totally off topic and NPOV and should be deleted ASAP" - I am disappointed by the rather impolite tone of your comments (please see Talk page guidelines). The same skeptical observations have appeared in other articles about controversial paranormal topics - without provoking such censure. Indeed, they have been welcomed for adding relevant and much needed depth to articles of this nature - however uncomfortable others may feel (I have seen the latest version of my edit and feel it is reasonable, in spite of editing).

I think the trick with all articles on controversial paranormal subjects is to reduce to a minimum how stupid a believer who writes such articles would look if it was shown that the mystery was just a load of bull. Likewise, skeptical contributors (in this case) need to minimise how dumb they would look if, say, a flying saucer landed on the White House lawn. Rikstar 09:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read the article at present, I left in your cultural/social aspects comment, but deleted the comment about people supposedly making money off the topic, which is irrelevant and off-topic. The same could be said for all the debunking books written about UFOs. People writing books and making money on one side or the other has nothing to do with the validity of the various arguments or phenomenon.

Incidentally, the so-called "Psychosocial Hypothesis" is already listed in the article under "Popular ideas for explaining UFOS", and there is a link to a separate Wiki article on the subject (Psychosocial_Hypothesis), so it hasn't exactly been ignored.

BTW, I don't know where you got the idea that Jung thought UFOs had a strictly cultural/psychological explanation. There are many direct quotes and writings by Jung where he did indeed think that SOME UFOs might very well be nuts-and-bolts craft, and cited such things as corroborating photographs and simultaneous radar contact. He was also impressed by the quality of many of the witnesses. Dr Fil 22:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall writing that Jung thought UFOs had a strictly cultural/psychological explanation. I was making the point that the press obviously went for simplistic, headline-grabbing interpretations - which just might have something to do with selling more newspapers which = making money!! I totally agree that: "People writing books and making money on one side or the other has nothing to do with the validity of the various arguments or phenomenon", but I am not talking about intellectual validity, I am talking about powerful factors that might add bias and create and perpetuate mystery where none exists. The main article itself includes the following reference:

"UFOs constitute a widespread international cultural phenomenon of the last half-century. Folklorist Thomas E. Bullard writes, ?UFOs have invaded modern consciousness in overwhelming force, and endless streams of books, magazine articles, tabloid covers, movies, TV shows, cartoons, advertisements, greeting cards, toys, T-shirts, even alien-head salt and pepper shakers, attest to the popularity of this phenomenon.?"

If you agree with the inclusion of this quote, there's little to "suppose" about people making money off the topic. And I don't suppose any skeptical viewpoints make up a more than a tiny fraction of such sales (If you want know how hard it is in reality to get well-researched skeptical material published in a market swamped with pro-paranormal stuff I can oblige). And there's a "Psychosocial Hypothesis" link, too? Good. Rikstar 01:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Rikstar, I think you are confusing UFOs as entertainment vs. UFOs as a serious subject of study. Yes, there is much cultural material in movies, ads, etc. treating the subject as entertainment. But that is very different from the media treating it soberly and factually as something possibly real. Rather, the media bias is definitely towards either ignoring it altogether or ridiculing the topic. Incidentally, in the U.S., skeptics have their own publishing house called Prometheus Press that publishes anti-UFO books, controlled by the same people who put out the Skeptical Inquirer Magazine. There is no comparable "pro-UFO" publishing house.Dr Fil 18:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WRT Rikstar's comment of "how dumb they (skeptics) would look if, say, a flying saucer landed on the White House lawn", I'd like to remind that in 1952 they came quite close to doing exactly that...

Quote I was fascinated by your account of the 1952 UFO flap around DC. I'm 68 now, but at age 13, I was there, living with my family - temporarily - in the sedate, colonial Alexandria home of my mother's sister and her husband. (My father was an Army officer. En route to Bogota, Colombia, Dad was going through Pentagon briefing.) What I recall as most striking about this flap was the ubiquitous excitement on local television, newspapers, and so forth. You didn't mention this in your piece, but individual sightings seemed to be all but continuous. Cars were piled up along the shoulders of the Mt. Vernon Parkway. Crowds gazing out across the Potomac toward DC and National Airport came and went. I remember my grown cousin - Jim (a broker in the family real estate business) - arriving at the house one day all but breathless with excitement over a sighting. As a sociologist I've long been fascinated by how civil authorities are able to virtually erase the direct experience (in this case) of literally hundreds of witnesses. Years would pass before my own inquiries would lead me to understand that UFOs represent a vital dimension of the human picture - hidden though it is behind smoke, mirrors, disinformation and sheer ignorance. Source ?The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dhatz (talk ? contribs) 21:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Mainstream science and Prozac explanations

This article still has "Flat Earth Society" comments such as "the general opinion of the mainstream scientific community is that all UFO sightings could ultimately be explained by prosaic explanations" which is clearly untrue (if you bother to read BlueBook Special Report 14 where Battelle Memorial Institute investigated 3201 cases you'll see why).

Also, if you read the content rather than just the title of many so-called "prosaic explanations", you'll understand why many humorously refer to them as Prozac-induced explanations.

On the issue of Science and UFOs, quotes by Dr. Peter A. Sturrock (Professor of Space Science and Astrophysics and Deputy Director of the Center for Space Sciences and Astrophysics at Stanford University; Director of the Skylab Workshop on Solar Flares in 1977 etc):

"The definitive resolution of the UFO enigma will not come about unless and until the problem is subjected to open and extensive scientific study by the normal procedures of established science. This requires a change in attitude primarily on the part of scientists and administrators in universities." (Sturrock, Peter A., Report on a Survey of the American Astronomical Society concerning the UFO Phenomenon, Stanford University Report SUIPR 68IR, 1977.)

"Although... the scientific community has tended to minimize the significance of the UFO phenomenon, certain individual scientists have argued that the phenomenon is both real and significant. Such views have been presented in the Hearings of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics [and elsewhere]. It is also notable that one major national scientific society, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, set up a subcommittee in 1967 to gain a fresh and objective perspective on the UFO phenomenon.

In their public statements (but not necessarily in their private statements), scientists express a generally negative attitude towards the UFO problem, and it is interesting to try to understand this attitude. Most scientists have never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon. To a scientist, the main source of hard information (other than his own experiments' observations) is provided by the scientific journals. With rare exceptions, scientific journals do not publish reports of UFO observations. The decision not to publish is made by the editor acting on the advice of reviewers. This process is self-reinforcing: the apparent lack of data confirms the view that there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, and this view works against the presentation of relevant data." (Sturrock, Peter A., "An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1987.)"

Recently Dr. Sturrock reported that the journal SCIENCE has agreed to publish "well penned" papers on UFOs.

To be frank, it's simply been a "your soul or your job" situation.

Dhatz 19:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That's silliness. Scientists have doubted the existence of UFOs because reports of such are based on tenuous and untrustworthy eyewitness accounts with precious little hard evidence to back them up. Just like the 9/11 conspiracies, Loch Ness monster accounts, Kennedy assassination, and all the other conspiracy theories out there, they're all based on subjective and ambiguous "nagging doubts" rather than real evidence. UFOs are no exception. With the tens of thousands of purported sighting of UFOs, it is certainly remarkable that no one has managed to pull one conclusive piece of evidence to support the existence of aliens.

Complaints about how scientists are in a "your soul or your job" position are just a manifestation of the frustration conspiracy theorists have toward scientists, the only people who can give them the credibility they crave. Since scientists won't give them that credibility, they expand the conspiracy until it includes most scientists. It's sour grapes. Aplomado ^talk 17:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ufo's. Real or fake. A question that boggles the mind to the end. I believe the is life out there, but UFO sightings, no. I think are justscientific tests of Unidentified Aircraft that designs havn't, or never been re-leased to the public. But i do believe in life —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelykid.master (talk • contribs) 00:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• This talk page isn't for general discussion of UFOs. "Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. WP:TP 79.233.114.87 (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Length of the article

This article is getting very long eh? Maybe someone should divide it up into different articles

Um, how would one go about doing so? It doesn't look easy to cut up into smaller parts. BRiCKDuDE102692 06:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing scientific research and opinion polls

We should mention ongoing scientific research such as Project Hessdalen in Norway, an monitoring of UFOs (UAP) by teams from Norway and Italy, using CCD cameras, magnetometers etc

There should also be a correction to the section on public opinion, because all polls I've seen sofar (CNN/Time 1997, BBC etc) in the 1990s and this decade show that over 50% think UFOs are ET craft (and percentages go up with level of education). This is quite a bit more than the 24% claimed by "Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion - American Piety in the 21st Century" cited now. Some ideas can be had from http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/publicopinionpolls.htm (I'll add if I find time)

Feel free to take ideas from my page at http://www.hyper.net/ufo.html

Dhatz 02:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What about Project Moon Dust? I'm not quite sure what it is, but the U.S. government created it to do something that pertains to UFOs. I'll look it up in some books. BRiCKDuDE102692 06:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Astronomers and UFOs

The part of the article on astronomers, starts quoting Plait that "amateur astronomer's don't report UFO sightings to HIM", this is an old issue, answered even in McDonald's testimony in 1968, but here are a few more relevant items:

1/ comments on astronomers and UFOs and Plait's comments that others don't report UFOs to him

2/ Haisch, a professional astronomer (who has actually studied the UFO subject, unlike Plait who merely states that "most UFOs are probably due to mundane causes" which is pretty obvious) gives a perspective on astronomers and requests help from aviation professionals http://www.ufoskeptic.org/aviation.html Dhatz 22:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Vimanas - ancient flying machines

http://www.dark-truth.org/okt222006-4-vimanas.html Vimanas - Ancient Indian flying machine

Suggest adding the above article in the external links section of UFO topic, as its an important piece of UFO history in ancient times, and very well documented.

-DB ?The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.188.150 (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

UFO Pix and NEW case

Links are: UFO cases incl. Pix of O' Hare UFO, [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53820 Ark UFOs viewed AS "The Devil"], Ark UFO Case: Ark UFOs seen AS "Of The Devil". The former link has a pix of the UFO seen over the O' Hare Airport in Chicago. The latter links refer to a possibly still ongoing UFO incident in Arkansas. The explanation there by locals is that they believe that "The Devil" is in the area, while a primary witness, who is a former USAF noncom says that the incident was that either a military exercise was going on OR that a hoax is being perpetrated by pilots in aircraft. Can this be placed in the "

Main article: List of major UFO sightings

" article ? I'm still investigating the latter case. Martial Law 21:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Propulsion?

Should the article have something about UFO propulsion? It could be used because there is some speculaion over what technology they would use to power the UFO. ?The preceding unsigned comment was added by The chamark (talk ? contribs) 18:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

An interesting idea. But being speculation, wouldn't it fall under the heading of speculation? BRiCKDuDE102692 05:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there are many theories about propusion out there. Ill look into it :)

Jabbafett (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Schulgen memo

A quite significant declassified document I couldn't find in here, is the Schulgen memo 1947 (http://www.project1947.com/fig/schulgen.htm), which proves that USAF was on the look for "flying saucer type aircraft" since 1947.

Note there is an inaccurate modified version in circulation (read more in http://www.roswellfiles.com/Articles/Schulgen.htm), which was changed to suggest that USAF already knew they were dealing with interplanetary craft (to "prove" the Roswell crash).

Dhatz 23:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Now this is a find we need to see. This could be a big help. Good work finding the fake, too. Some of us could have been tricked by it. BRiCKDuDE102692 06:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously a cigar cigarette...

This image featured in the page [[2]] seems to clearly be a cigar type cigarette placed over a photo plate of a picture of some sort of foam background, possibly tissue paper or more likely a painting. Close examination of the 'UFO' shows the front part to be fractured in a way exactly similar to a wet cigar. Examination of the background of the image shows the "clouds" to look nothing like natural clouds and more like tissue paper or a painting. Examination of the cigar itself shows that the cigar is on a different photo level from the background. The background is flat and the cigar has more dimension to it suggesting it was placed on top of a painting. Easily hoaxed with 1870 photo technology. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

At least the caption says "purported"... Using an actual cigar to represent the "cigar-shaped" UFO type really is taking the biscuit though. Can we have a vaguely believable picture please? Totnesmartin 14:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I laughed when I saw that picture. I find it hard to believe anyone could be gullible enough to believe that's actually a "UFO" let alone an alien space craft. The 1st picture is obviously fake as well. Looks to be a tin homemade saucer floating up in the air with a fishing pole and string. If you look close enough you can vaguely make out fishing string.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

of course if we insisted on genuine photos then our options would become slightly limited... Totnesmartin 13:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, although the article has improved immensely since 3Q2006, it's still very weak wrt photographic evidence and physical trace cases. It should at the very least have Trent and Heflin's, Costa Rica 1971 and Kelsey Bay photos. And potentially Childerhose and Trindade too. One can look at my own page at http://www.hyper.net/ufo.html for links to UFO photo galleries, e.g. the article from Popular Mechanics The 6 UFO Sightings THEY Can't Explain. The problem is that there are WP editors, who insist on editing the UFO subject, although they haven't the vaguest idea... Dhatz 23:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I understand that many UFO photos might not look like one "expects" a "real alien spacecraft" (i.e. like the ones of Klingon from StarTrek or Shadows from Babylon5), but many UFOs are indeed discoid and spherical and often self-luminous. Btw initially it was quite hard for me to accept as well, until I spent several hundreds of hours researching the subject. Dhatz 23:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen a single photo of a supposed alien space craft that I couldn't provide an alternative explanation for. And going with Occams Razor, What's more likely? A super advanced alien civilization visiting earth from thousands of light years away and floating up in the sky? Or a hoax?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't the only two options. Totnesmartin 13:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right in most cases. But when you go back further in time and the saucers look so overtly 1950ish "Ufo movie" then they are most likely a hoax.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

oh yes, there are loads of hoaxes - but there must be some squeaky-clean pictures we could use. Totnesmartin 16:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, when you write "I haven't seen a single photo..." etc just how much time have you spent researching the subject of UFOs, on which you insist on offering an opinion? Why don't you first e.g. take a look what the people in charge of various countries' (Hynek in US, Poher and Velasco in France, Smith in Canada, Pope in UK) UFO projects have said, who -unlike the armchair theorists- did field investigations of many different cases over decades. Or take a look at the list below, feel free to research those cases. ?The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dhatz (talk ? contribs) 02:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

I've spent several years studying "UFO"'s. When I was a child I even believed they were Alien space crafts. The list below is impossible for me to read and follow through on. And even if you posted the actual pictures I simply don't have the will or time to follow through on them and post explanations of how they are natural phenomenon or could be faked etc just so you could post a rebuttal and we argue for weeks on end point to point and get nowhere. If you want to believe super advanced alien races travel thousands of light years to little old earth just to float up in the sky or abduct farmers and do sexual experiments on them then that's fine with me. Really...Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is correct -- it's not a airship but a cigar, sitting on rime ice. It's not actually a hoax, but a misidentification -- the photo was taken during a scientific expedition to Mount Washington in the winter of 1870-1, and the cigar was used to provide scale. It was only a few years ago that somebody decided it was a UFO in clouds. So it should be removed. See Image_talk:1871UFO.gif. Airminded 15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Er, it's still there... not for long though! Totnesmartin 13:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

i dont agree with the removal, that is why the word "purported" is used, there is no reason at all to remove this picture, the subject (whether real or not) deals directly with the subject at hand (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk ? cont ? email} 16:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think this photo is not at all convincing. Nobody at the time thought there was anything strange about it, and nobody claimed there was until 2002 when a 19th-century commercial stereograph reproduction was placed on eBay and sold at an inflated price because the seller had the bright idea to call it a UFO photo (eg see here: [3]). There's just no provenance for this idea. Also, I don't think it's plausible that with 1870s photographic technology that you could take a photo like that of an airship in distant clouds and have it turn out so clear (and this version is much more cropped than the original; it was clear that the "airship" was not the primary interest of the photographer). I emailed Mt. Washington Observatory back when this photo first surfaced and was told that

The stereograph in question is of rime ice (atmospheric icing, caused when supercooled water droplets in clouds collide with an object) covering a terrestrial object (perhaps a pile of rocks), not of clouds. I daresay the "UFO" is either a cigar or similar (put in for scale?), or perhaps is indicative of a flaw in the manufacture of the stereograph. Clough and Kimball were resident photographers for the 1870-71 expedition, which was the first extended winter stay on the summit of Mount Washington.

There's nothing mysterious about this photo at all, except why some people seem to think there is ...

Having said all that (and got it off my chest!), Nima Baghaei is right: it is now a purported UFO photograph, whether that's justified or not (and whether I like it or not). So I guess there is no basis for not including it on those grounds.

But there are thousands, if not millions of purported UFO photos around, so the question should rather be: why include this particular photo and not one of the many others? From its position in the article, in the history section, it's evidently there because it's old. But there are (a few) other old UFO photos out there, ones which have a demonstrable provenance and were recognised as anomalous at the time. The one that springs to mind is the 1883 photograph taken by an astronomer in Mexico, which is already in Wikipedia: the Jos? Bonilla sighting. So why not use that instead? It's a classic and much more verifiable than this silly photo. Airminded 06:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

it is on the subject, it has been uploaded onto wiki project, and so we use it here to show to the public a purported UFO (whether one wants to believe it or not is up to them), if you want to add the mexican photo also (why not have two instead of one hehe) (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk ? cont ? email} 12:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

or some add the information about how it came to be thought of as a UFO, if that can be cited. Totnesmartin 16:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think at minimum that should be done, but good luck finding a credible citation for this photo, it just floats around on the internet, context-free! But I'd still like to know what Nima Baghaei (or anyone) thinks this photo adds to the article? Fine, it's a purported UFO photo, I already conceded that ... but why should this particular purported UFO photo be included, and not some other one? Airminded 15:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. let's use a well-known picture of a cigar shaped UFO 9even if adamski took it), rather than a photo of a cigar! Totnesmartin 21:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

no i disagree once again; if you want, add another photo to the article, but do not remove this photo, i have already explained (no reason to repeat this again) that it is a purported UFO and is related to the article (whether or not you believe it is a UFO is up to you, but do not let your own personal judgment of the photo cause you to want to remove it), quite a famous photo at that (even has its own article Mystery airship) (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk ? cont ? email} 21:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you haven't addressed my questions; perhaps I am not being very clear -- I'll try to do better. ALL UFO photos are purported UFO photos, so on that basis it is no different to any other UFO photo. I'm asking how specifically does this photo enhance this article? Wikipedia is not a place to dump every single purported UFO photo in existence, so we must have some criteria for choosing some and not others. It's not a particularly famous image, despite your claims to the contrary, and just because it is already in another Wikipedia article, it doesn't mean it is famous, just that somebody uploaded the image into Wikipedia! (And in fact, I flagged it as dubious on the Talk:Mystery_airship page over a week ago. Mystery_airship is not about the photo at all, it doesn't even mention it.) The fact that it is already in the UFO article is no reason why it can't be replaced with something better known, better attested, more illustrative of the UFO phenomenon. If it's such a significant photo, why isn't it given a citation? Why is it not even mentioned in the text, like the other two historical UFO images? All I'm asking for are positive reasons as to why this photo should be in the article, something more than "it's already there so why remove it?" Airminded 07:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

its very well known classic UFO photograph (whether other agree with me is up to them) (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk ? cont ? email} 17:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Obviously, I disagree. As I've explained a couple of times now, its history as a UFO photo dates only to 2002. You won't find it reproduced or discussed anywhere before then as a UFO photo, in books or on the web. So it absolutely is not a "classic". As for "very well known" (which would appear to be a step down from "quite a famous photo", lol), perhaps it's becoming so, but in part because of the legitimacy Wikipedia is giving it by prominently placing it in its UFO article! But regardless: by your criteria ("very well known"/"classic") there are many UFO photos which should get into this article way ahead of this one. Some suggestions have already been made in this section: eg, Adamski, Trent, Trindade Island. Others could be added: Gulf Breeze, the Phoenix Lights, heck, even Billy Meier. (That list should show you that my concern is not whether the photo is "real" or faked.) There are currently no "very well known classic" photos in the article! Airminded 01:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The McMinnville photos would be a good idea to add. They have yet to be disproven and are considered genuine by many ufologists and photography experts. BRiCKDuDE102692 05:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Significant or convincing UFO sightings

For reference (but can't be added to this article, it's already too long):

Jacques & Janine Vallee, Challenge to Science (1966) Survey of 29 U.S. UFO organizations (about 13 responding) of Most Significant or Convincing UFO Sightings

1. Socorro, NM, Apr 24, 1964 (Zamora case)
2. Washington, DC, July 19-20, 26-27, 1952 (Wash National Airport)
3. Trindade Island, Brazil, Jan 16, 1958 (IGY photos)
4. Mt. Rainier, Wash, June 24, 1947 (Kenneth Arnold case)
5. Ft. Knox, Kentucky, Jan 7, 1948 (Mantell case)
6. Southwest U.S. (Texas), Nov 1957 (Levelland etc.)
7. Kinross AFB, Mich, Nov 23, 1953 (jet disappearance)
8. Rapid City, SD, Aug 5-6, 1953 (radar-visual jet case)
9. Lubbock, Texas, Aug 25, 1951 (Lubbock Lights photo)
10. Newport News, VA, July 14, 1952 (Nash-Fortenberry case)
11. Boianai, New Guinea, June 26-7, 1959 (Father Gill case)
12. Fort Itaipu, Brazil, Nov 3, 1957
13. Salem, Mass, July 16, 1952 (Alpert photo)
14. Red Bluff, Calif, Aug 13, 1960
15. Washington, DC, May 29, 1950 (Capt Sperry case)
16. Goose Bay, Labrador, June 30,1954 (BOAC radar-visual)
17. Rome, Italy, (Oct 28, 1954 ??) (radar-visual?? Clare Booth Luce??)
18. New Jersey, (Apr 24, 1964 ??) (Wilcox contactee ??)
19. Montgomery, Alab, July 24-5, 1948 (Chiles-Whitted case)
20. Ubatuba, Brazil, Sept 1957 (magnesium physical evidence)
21. McMinnville, Ore, May 11, 1950 (Trent case photos)

Nos. 2, 8, 16, 20 and 21 were investigated by the Condon Committee and 2 of the 5 remained _unexplained_ (nos. 16 and 21), Goose Bay and McMinnville.

Ronald Story with J. Richard Greenwell, UFOs and the Limits of Science (1981) Oct 1979 Survey of 90 Leading UFO Researchers (33 responding) Strongest UFO Evidence on Record

1. McMinnville, Ore, May 11, 1950 (Trent case photos)
2. Great Falls, Mont, Aug 15, 1950 (Mariana film)
3. Newport News, VA, July 14, 1952 (Nash-Fortenberry case)
4. Lakenheath AFB, Eng, Aug 13-14, 1956 (multiple radar-visual)
5. Levelland, Texas, Nov 2-3, 1957
6. Trindade Island, Brazil, Jan 16, 1958 (IGY photos)
7. Boianai, New Guinea, June 26-7, 1959 (Father Gill case)
8. Whitefield, NH, Sept 20, 1961 (Betty & Barney Hill case)
9. Exeter, NH, Sept 3, 1965
10. Ravenna, Ohio, Apr 17, 1966 (Spaur chase case)
11. Mansfield, Ohio, Oct 18, 1973 (Coyne helicopter case)
12. Tehran, Iran, Sept 19-20, 1976 (Iranian jet case)
13. Kaikoura, New Zealand, Dec 31, 1978 (New Zealand film multiple radar-visual)

All three of the cases on this list that had been investigated by the Condon Committee, Nos. 1, 2 and 4 (McMinnville, Great Falls, and Lakenheath) remained _unexplained_ after investigation by the Condon Committee. ?The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dhatz (talk ? contribs) 23:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Finally someone's making some sense. It struck me as odd that some of these weren't mentioned in the article. Perhaps these cases can be put in an article entitled 'List of UFO cases' with each case having it's own sub heading, mabye divided by country. Or mabye a list of UFO cases per country (i.e. List of UFO cases in Argentina). Thank you for putting this down, because this is pretty important.BRiCKDuDE102692 07:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Its funny, it seems almost all UFO sightings hapened near a large body of water. Jabbafett (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources and citations

A lot of the statements concerning historical sightings of UFOs have citations that are dead links. Per WP:V, I have removed these statements. However, if someone can find the citations that go with them, they can probably go back in. Djma12 ^(talk) 20:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

nope they are working and so i added them back on, check to make sure your browser and/or internet connection and/or ISP and/or Firewall is not blocking or malfunctioning (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Grr, that's what I get for editing from a hospital. Will check when I get home. Regards, Djma12 ^(talk) 23:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This information will open peoples eyes to UFOs but destroy any prof they think they have on UFOs. Im not going to deep into deatwils but the original desine of the UFO was by Hitler. He hired a sientist to come up with a powerful death machine that could fly extremaly high in the sky. Most of these files were clacified by our goverment in hopes to copy and profect the idea. Unfortunatly Hitler was successful and used them only twice in the war. After this the Nazis lost the war and Hitler and Eva Bron killed them selves. After that the idea in Germany became a fable. Then the soviet union found traces of his plans. Then America picked up on it and we tried to use this. The crash at Roswell was a test flight of one of the saucers that exploded on the airstrip. When the media picked up on all of this combined with other movies and fakings and questions about space fulled it into a conspiracy. Most UFOs are either controled by goverments or fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.170.17 (talk • contribs)

Uh, why exactly are you telling us this? We're not here to prove or disprove anything. We're here to write a quality article. And no one is certain that Hitler killed himself... BRiCKDuDE102692 07:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Unusual Foreign Objects?

bbc.com uses a reading of the abbreviation i've never heard before. Is the author just an idiot, or is this the british version of the acronym? -Shaggorama 00:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

A Google search for the full term "Unusual Foreign Objects" shows only some 100 hits, with those generally not even applying to anything UFO related. It can be safely ignored as just somebody not knowing what he was talking about or making something up. DreamGuy 22:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh. It seems to link to medical articles anyway, and just doesn't seem used enough. "Unidentified (or unidentifiable) flying object" is the usual reading of the initialism. mike4ty4 19:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It could also be the British way of saying it. Jabbafett (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

When I visited some of the external references in this page, I found that most of them were filled with anecdotally evidence, while the article claims physical evidence. Is it possible that we could reference the claims to the actual declassified information, rather than sites like ufoevidence.org ? 59.92.85.242 09:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

if you know of any links, or documents, please do share (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk ? cont ? email} 15:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If such documents were released, then information would be plentiful. Sadly, there are few declassified reports, and some were destroyed by government projects like project blue book. However, if recent documents come to light, including them would be greatly appreciated. Oh and Mexico's government has released a handful of declassified documents, so that may help. BRiCKDuDE102692 06:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Try NICAP (National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena). They have alot of sources and documents. Jabbafett (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge UFO categorization

• Ufology merge?
• Keep I dont see why this needs to be done unless we are trying to save space (shrink article size) (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk ? cont ? email} 13:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• KeepUfology and UFOs are two seperate things. Craming them together would only make an even bigger article. However, links that alternate between the two articles could help both. BRiCKDuDE102692 06:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Signal vs. Noise, what percent of cases unexplained?

Our article, in the section ?Explanations and opinions,? is talking about in the neighborhood of 30%. I always heard 1%, and that doesn?t mean insignificant! For our observational powers are great in some cases, but poorly adapted for other circumstances, so yeah, there?s going to be all kinds of false reports. Once you put those to the side, you?re still left with residual cases and that?s the real mystery. FriendlyRiverOtter 08:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

PS And I think a long article is a good article. This is a big topic!

Certainly agree with the PS comment. Studies typically come up with unidentified values of between 10 and 30%. The French SEPRA/GEIPAN studies at first indicated about 13% unidentified, but since they put their files up on the Net earlier this year, they're now talking about nearly half having no explanation. There is a lot of variation in the identified/unidentified numbers depending on who is doing the study, their methods and criteria, what type of cases they study (e.g., many vs. few military cases), and what political agendas may be involved. See Identified flying object for some more details. Dr Fil 01:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The percentages are difficult to figure, but I think Dr Fil got it right. Yes a long article is a good article because it tells you all you need to know. BRiCKDuDE102692 06:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hoaxes

CHAD Drone/CARET has not been proved to be a hoax yet. The resemblance of the antigrav device and a pipe pig are vague at best and is no way indicative of a hoax in any way. Before this is classified as a hoax, you'll have to do present much better evidence than that.

Planetfall 15:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a complete hoax done by computer graphic rendering technologies... ?The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.188.142.105 (talk) 01:46, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Planetfall is right. There is no proof that it is true nor a hoax, so it should be kept in consideration until such evidence is presented in favor of or against it. BRiCKDuDE102692 06:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is no proof that it is true, it must be considered a hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

UFO theory

It is foolish to assume that we are alone in the universe. Our planet is but a small speck even smaller than the ones we see in the sky. We could not possibly be the only planet with life on. However it is also foolish to believe that objects in the sky that we haven?t seen before are aliens. If thought about it the whole UFO crisis can be explained. The crisis happened during the cold war, when both Americans and Communist were developing new weapons against each other. Some evidence is very obvious for example one of many descriptions of a UFO by a USAF pilots following it was "It was silver or white and something red." Those were the colors of the Soviet Air force. At that time it was easier for US government to say it was a UFO. Saying it was a Soviet plane would mean creating panic; people would have been very disturbed that their enemy could get inside the country so easy. So the best thing to do was blame it on aliens. It is easy to assume that people saw right through the pilot's description and recognized a soviet plane, but the pilot's also reported that the object was very maneuverable and extremely fast. Well, compared to the old air force planes that were following the "objects" a lot of things were advanced. Let us not forget that 1950's-1980's were times of great achievements, for example the jet engine, they were just starting to developed. It is more than possible that USSR, who put almost a half of its economy into military productions and developments, had produced a plane that was far more advanced than the US aircraft. There were reports of UFOs from USSR too so you can assume that US was developing new aircraft too. And the Roswell crash, there is enough evidence to say that a new jet under development had crashed on a test flight or something along those lines. The government covered it up not to let any information out about their development to Communist spies. True, it is weird that the crash and other events are still kept secret. But maybe those aircraft are still being developed or they are being used right now we just don't realize it.

Skeptical, but enlightening. It is ridiculus to assume that we are the only intelligent life in the galaxy, let alone the universe and the dimension. You make many excellent points, but you lose me on some of them. The 'foo fighters' you described above are described as spheres capable of 90 degree turns. There is no plane that can turn at such an angle; it would be ripped apart. Also, the Soviet Union and China reported the same phenomenon, beleiving it was an American secret weapon. I would also like to mention that the Freedom of Information Act, an act that releases confidential government documents that are fifty years or older, is being ignored by the U.S. Government, with no given reason. It is possible that Earth is being visited by extraterrestrial beings, for we have been sending radio and TV transmissions into deep space. If intercepted, then something knows plenty about us. BRiCKDuDE102692 06:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"It is possible that Earth is being visited by extraterrestrial beings, for we have been sending radio and TV transmissions into deep space." This is the only actual content of your statement, and it's ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yer maybe they Like Days of our lives or the young and the restless, i always thought those shows were out of this world LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.72.227 (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

IFO/UFO

So what happens when a UFO is finally at some point in the future identified as a flying saucer? Will people still call it a UFO, even though it has been positively identified? Gavroche42 18:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the "people" in question and who "positively identified" it as what. Some UFO investigators record and report UFO reports which are easily identified; some discard these reports. If the "positive identification" is made by a known debunker or does not fit the reported properties and behaviors of the UFO, then many researchers will continue to treat the report as unidentified. As far as the public in general... who knows. As with any field of serious investigation, public terminology will vary from technical terminology. Some UFO investigators are starting to use the term UAP (unidentified aerial phenomenon/a) in lieu of UFO, as UAP is a more neutral term without all of the varied connotations associated with the term "UFO". -WikiFelix the WikiCat 07:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless absolutely proven, a UFO should be considered a UFO. If it was proven to be a lenticular cloud, weather balloon, or the like, then it is considered an IFO. And the phrase UAP is a more neutral term, thank you for pointing that out. BRiCKDuDE102692 06:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that some people will believe whatever tabloid rubbish they come across, and others wouldn't accept UFOs if one landed in front of them. Also, remember we're not here to prove or disprove UFOs (even if we could), but to make the best possible article. Totnesmartin 23:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

When the term Flying Saucer was invented

"Before the terms ?flying saucer? and ?UFO? were coined in the late 1940s..."

This is now a controversial point, as the term has been discovered to have existed before 1947. See this presentation by Chris Aubeck: http://www.magoniax.com/downloads/Flying%20Saucers.html --217.125.215.83 22:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC) [user:caubeck]

I think the Haiti UFO should be mentioned in this wiki entry. It is a complete hoax, yet many think it to be absolutely real. THis is very similar to the CARET Drone Hoax, using 3D Graphics Software to render out very realistic looking imagery. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up5jmbSjWkw ?The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.188.142.105 (talk) 01:57, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

back on topic, what about rephrasing it to "[...]were popularized in the late 1940s[...]"? 82.176.216.87 12:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

According to a handful of books I've read, the term flying saucer was coined in Texas around 1940 by a farmer, but became famous in the 1950s or 1960s. Apparantly, some incredible footage was captured by this famous guy (I can't remember his name) and he described the UFOs as "flying saucer." The Air Force took the footage and did not return it. BRiCKDuDE102692 06:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Astronauts have seen UFO's while in space, which is very interesting. It seems to disprove the idea that UFO's are biological creatures that live in the atmosphere. BRiCKDuDE102692 06:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Another link for "External links"?

How about we include the following link under "External links" and not under References...so the external links page doesn't look to biased...if you know what i mean. link: http://www.nuforc.org

I've checked it...it's not some crazy lunatic page. It's a page where people all around the US are reporting UFO sightings. The owners of that page seem to be credible, since they investigate the reports...and of course have caught hoaxers too. So I don't think they are crazy...but open minded.

My 2 cents

UserDoe 23:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)UserDoe (hope i made a correct signature..if not tell me)

I kinda don't get what you mean by biased, could you please expand upon that? :3 Lychosis ^T/C 23:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

National Aviation Reporting Center on anomalous phenomena

CIA educational summary on UFO NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts

British Ministry of Defence (MoD) -- Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) in the UK Air Defence Region

Look at those...i mean not to remove the links to official websites...no way...but people will rather click on those instead of the others. So what we should do is the following: Give the people a chance to read credible reports of unidentified flying objects and then they can decide whether or not to believe it. But ok...the "biased" was probably overdone, but i was reffering to those "official" webpages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UserDoe (talk • contribs)

I kinda see what you're saying. And your edits are showing up like that because you're indenting them manually. Use colons to indent. Look at mine in the editing thing. As for that link, I'll throw it in there, and see if anyone has an issue with it. :3 Lychosis ^T/C 23:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

ok thank you :-) i think i got it now UserDoe 23:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)UserDoe

Definition of UFO

The article currently states that a UFO is "any real or apparent flying object which cannot be identified by the observer and which remains unidentified after investigation". This definition does not reflect the consensus in the field of UFO investigation. According to UFOROM's (Ufology Research of Manitoba) 2006 Canadian UFO Survey, a UFO is defined simply as "an object seen in the sky which its observer cannot identify". (6th section down, under "UFOs and IFOs".)

This wording is clearer and definitely reflects what at least one national organization in the field uses as its definition. According to the cited report, this working definition is also what was used by the US Air Force's Project Blue Book. The exclusion of any reference to or qualification by independent investigation serves an important purpose: it allows for the collection of more complete statistics concerning UFO sightings (refer to the cited report for a more complete explanation of the rationale behind using this definition of UFO). WikiFelix the WikiCat 06:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The current definition is fine as it is. It's accurate enough for the time being. And thank you WikiFelix for mentioning Project Blue Book. Some people overlook it. BRiCKDuDE102692 06:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Objective proof, from the "Wikipedia Policy"

Someone deleted my posts, without comment or contact, evidently because they did not like what was posted, in clear violation of Wikipedia's policy. What was posted was an offering of proof byway of evidence from the patent office that man has had the ability to build flying craft that people call UFO's for the last 100 years. I think that expired patents from the patent office qualify as "objective proof ... something which can be validated by a third party", and I doubt that anyone can argue that patents are not objective proof.

Perhaps because I am new to this forum, I may have offended someone, and if so I would apologize. I have gone through the regulations listed on this website for posting, and I can not find where my error may lay.

As such, I am convinced that this deletion was a partisan attack, and I am asking the moderator of the website for assistance. At no point am I saying that aliens don't exist. I do say that proof in the form of a living alien being, or even an alien corpse, has not been presented. I do also say that proof from the patent office exists that man has invented and does fly UFO craft. The fact that I am not a believer in whomever's alien cult does not warrant that my posting should be deleted. Where is the fairness in that?

regards, Lukefortune 21:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)lukefortune

JFlav deleted your comment on the talkpage. But I have to tell you, that all your recent edits on this article clearly show a bias and therefor are against Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. See NPOV for details. Lets just take these phrases: " Every photograph and film footage of flying saucers can been adequately explained by patented technology" "However, "believers" seem to be easily offended at the prospect that UFO's can be proven to be made by people here on Earth. "This does not belong into an unbiased article, since this is your own opinion.No offense, just to avoid further mistakes :) Regards UserDoe 22:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

JFlav,

Which sentence in the above appears to you to be biased?

"Every photograph..."

or

"However, believers..."

If you say the former, then you display an ignorance of the technology that has been patented in the last 100 years. Craft that glow like fireballs in the sky, make right angle maneuvers at high speeds, that are invisible to radar, and can jet away at speeds in excess of 9,000 miles per hour are a patented REALITY.

If you say the latter, than you identify yourself as a "believer", and show your bias by deleting my post.

Don't get me wrong. I am not a debunker. I would very much like to see humans make contact with alien life and move into a galactic or cosmic society. But that proof has not been provided. I have proof by way of the PATENT OFFICE of the US, and a few other countries, that shows that mankind does possess the technology. In the interest of fairness to every reader, and the progress of the human race as a whole, please restore the original postings and reference to the encyclopedic series that displays this proof.

lukefortune —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukefortune (talk • contribs) 22:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Since when do patents qualify as opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.118.139 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I just returned from vacation to discover that my recently-hired assistant has made a mess in my name while I was gone, so let my start by apologizing for what has transpired.

I like the layout for what you guys have done with the whole UFO entry here in Wikipedia. Very substantive for an elusive topic.

I did notice that there is not a lot on man made flying saucers.

I can appreciate the emphasis on the unknown, for this topic. What kind of things do you think would make a fair posting in this entry for man made craft?

Regards, Lukefortune 00:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Luke Fortune

Luke - could I respectfully suggest that if an entry of that nature is made that you start with the German RFZ series of craft? They were essentially flying saucers created ny Nazi Germany and yes they did work...kinda. They could fly but were inherently unstable and the war precluded any further development of them...but flying saucers they were. OzScot (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

The article states the following:

• "Unusual aerial phenomena have been reported throughout prehistory (flying saucers in cave paintings in Hunan, 47,000 B.C., southern France, 20,000 B.C., etc.) and history. Many of these phenomena were undoubtedly astronomical in nature: comets, bright meteors, one or more of the five planets which can be seen with the naked eye, planetary conjunctions, or atmospheric optical phenomena such as parhelia and lenticular clouds."

It could just be me, but this seems a bit biased, mainly due to the phrase 'were undoubtedly'. Can this be replaced with 'could have been' instead? Just wondering. BRiCKDuDE102692 06:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This sounds indeed a bit biased, might even be POV. I'll be bold and change it. If anybody has any issues with this edit, I'd be happy to hear them. Regards UserDoe 22:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Aplomado and Brickdude. Wikipedia should not be representing interpretations and opinions as fact. Facts should be held to the same standards of evidence as is used in court proceedings. Grafitti in caves on another continent does not constitute a "report in prehistory," nor should the interpretation that the pictures are flying saucers be presented. Pretty pictures on a cave wall are pretty pictures on a cave wall. The interpretation of said picture does not constitute fact, nor does it constitute a "report." ````lukefortune ?Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukefortune (talk ? contribs) 20:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that some undoubtedly were. See historical astronomy for more. ScienceApologist 22:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I changed it a bit now. Now it says:

"Some of these phenomena were undoubtedly astronomical in nature: comets, bright meteors, one or more of the five planets which can be seen with the naked eye, planetary conjunctions, or atmospheric optical phenomena such as parhelia and lenticular clouds. An example is the Comet Halley , which has been recorded the first time historically by Chinese astronomers in 240 B.C. and possibly as early as 467 B.C.."

I think this should be more suitable. UserDoe 01:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

UFO search engine

IBM and Yahoo have launched a search engine dedicated to ufos: http://www.ufocrawler.com/search/ ?Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.211.101.193 (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Major cleanup needed

This article is a joke. It's rife with speculation, rampant insinuation of government conspiracy and a generally heavy bias in favor of UFO theories. It is in need of a major cleanup in regards to the tone of the article and its sourcing. I would encourage someone to take on this task, as unfortunately I don't have the time these days. Aplomado ^talk 17:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

POLL: Adding material such as this of Lukefortune [Contribs] which he created himself ?

The result was Don't add User Doe _☻T ^☼C 03:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Breaks several Wikipedia policies. Like WP:SPS WP:RS WP:OR According to him, there is no other source for the statements he wants to add, other than the one he created himself (the books he has written and his website). I might want to see this material included here in the future (maybe)(of course respecting WP:NPOV), but as long a there is no other reliable source, I will oppose it. Regards User Doe _☻T ^☼C 00:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose As of UserDoe; furthermore, it also breaks WP:NPOV. 24.110.67.186 03:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Clearly breaks WP:NPOV WP:SPS and might even break WP:OR. Sorry, but this content does not belong here. Wikipedia does not exist to promote someone's books, website, opinion or what ever. AnubisGodfather^T_?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A section on "explanations" for why governments' are mum on UFOs

I've been thinking about this for 30 years and today it occured to me that there may a case to made that that the US, Russia, China, UK, ect. are NOT talking about what they DO know about the existence or non-existence of UFOs NOT because it's THEIR policies, but because they have been "given" specific guidelines on how to deal with their countrymen. This should be explored. For the sake of argument, let's posit that, OK, these aliens "do" exist and come and go on a regular basis. Perhaps they, themselves have established the protocols for informing a planetary population. They could simply have informed the major governments more than 50 years ago of the following policies, for example. 1. We get "interested" in a planetary civilization once they go nuclear. 2. But since continued planetary existence, at that point, is problematic and our experiences have been that some planets never get past the nuclear stage, and self-destruct at one point or another. 3. We do NOT deal with such planets until they outgrow the need for nukes and other WMD and also 4. Establish a planetary form of government.

Only at that point do we deal with a specific planet, and since you are perhaps centuries from that point, your governments are PROHIBITED from confirming our existence until these milestones have been met. Thanks for your attention to adherence to these protocols, it might NOT go well for you planetary-wise, for your to chose to ignore these protocols. Have a nice day, "us..."

See my point, it's not like there isn't plenty of phenomena and data out there. I mean, is it even remotely plausible that our planet's so-called advanced national governments "don't know," one way or the other about the existence or non-existence of UFOs powered by extra-terrestrial beings? Gimme a break! We HAVE nation-state governments primarily to insure the existence and survival of the nation states from internal and external threats. It's their dang BUSINESS to know such things. My whole point is simply this, there should be either a section or a separate article just on justifications for non-disclosure. I know we're not supposed to "discuss" the existence or non-existence, but think about it. Ideas? -- SimonATL (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A section on why individuals don't "want" to believe in UFOs

I have friends who DON'T believe in the existence of ETs simply because it conflicts with their theological beliefs. Their answer is that ETs "can't exist if MY religion is 'true,' and I think that these theological and sociological aspects should be discussed. There are a lot of articles and even scholarly papers on these aspects. Ideas? -- SimonATL (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, people are too closed minded. I think you should show them some hard evidence and logical facts such as "The universe is so large, what are the possibilities of their not being ETs"

Jabba Fett, November 19th, 2007 ?Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabbafett (talk ? contribs) 22:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

indeed your right show them a alien or an ufo 82.217.143.153 (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Technology

When was the idea of ET's having better technology than we do? If there are ETs, they will most likely be single-celled oganisms. Jabbafett (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ever see the movie Independence Day? That is how people will find out that "we're" not alone. 205.240.146.37 (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Why people don't "believe in UFOs"

• Some religions claim they're "The Devil"/demons
• The Robertson Panel and Operation Mockingbird, both CIA operations make sure "UFO shit" does'nt become known to the sheeple. See all articles mentioned.

I've read all discussions here and they indicate all hell would break loose IF aliens are found, incl. alien germs, aliens find US. 205.240.146.37 (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone agree ? Disagree? Remember, Wikipedia is NOT(supposed to be)CENSORED. 205.240.146.37 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Clean up coming?!

About time. Hope it does'nt end up being either pro Skeptic (per Operation Mockingbird and Robertson Panel, two CIA guidelines), nor "UFO Believer" either. 65.163.112.28 (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree - I'm a believer but refuse to believe in anything which can't be substantiated. I really do think there's a case for dealing with UFOs as precisely what they are - Unidentified flying objects - please remember that if a UFO can be shown to be something carrying life from 'out there' then it ceases to be a UFO and becomes 'something else' ie - flying saucer, spaceship, alien craft or whatever but it ceases to be a UFO. I find arguments that UFOs have to be referenced as 'alien technology or life' bewildering as they would then move out of the ufo category completely. So many believers put the cart before the horse without pausing to think about it - if it's an alien craft for example, it is no longer a UFO so why argue to steal the 'ufo ground'? I agree with most of those who describe the entry as a mess - it truly is, and all I see mostly are competing 'beliefs' and not encyclopedic calibre content. OzScot (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Major cleanup coming

Agreeing with several posts above, this article will be undergoing substantial revision in the future. The article is poorly organized, it contains reams of irrelevant, unverifiable, or unreliable data, and it has nothing even plausibly mistakable for neutrality. Some of the information is repeated elsewhere on the very same page, and some entire sections can be deleted because they only summarize other Wikipedia articles that can be just as easily slipped down to the References or Other Sites sections. I do not want to just demolish the whole article and just start over, but that might be a necessarily solution given the huge number of changes that need to be made.

Almost all of the "history" section can be merged into pages like ancient astronaut theories, list of UFO sightings, ufology, things like that. If necessary at all, this section should be an extremely general sketch of the character of UFO sightings. There are editorial remarks throughout, and some of the material sighted is simply obviously unreputable (and often, unsourced). Skepticism is applied extremely selectively: notice that there is great concern expressed over the 1968 Condon Report, which had a "negative conclusion" (about what the author doesn't say, but about the ET UFO hypothesis), but there is none whatsoever taken in the interesting anecdote by Dr. Olavo T. Fuentes about two Brazilian military officers confessing to a worldwide military/government conspiracy to hide the truth about UFOs to prevent "widespread panic and social breakdown." Why is a double-blind study the subject of ridicule, but not one guy's story about an imminent "invasion" of the Earth, "perhaps a police action to keep us confined to the planet?"

There isn't even a properly-fitted "skepticism" section. Some of the things included, such as the different UFO classification systems, are simply junk that at best deserve their own, brief articles. The general bias throughout this article is that UFOs are extraterrestrial craft, and any dissenting data is treated as faulty (almost always without good reason) and the inclusion of things like "ancient astronaut theories" and the UFO classification system savagely buttresses the article's apparent assumption that every unexplained light in the sky is a Klingon Bird-of-Prey.

Under "Some Popular ideas for explaining UFOs," there are the completely ridiculous "Paranornaom/Occult hypothesis" and the "time machine" hypothesis, which are advanced as being "common" explanations that are listed higher than the "skeptical ones," and the "skeptical ones" are listed as though skeptics believe only one of them to be true.

The "Identified Flying Objects" paragraph is totally unnecessary. At best, stick Identified flying objects into the See also.

The UFO categorization has nothing to do with UFOs, it has only to do with the Extraterrestrial Visitation Hypothesis. It should be deleted or moved to its own page.

The Conspiracies section is its own article. It needs only a very cursory survey of the literature and a general description of the claims and skepticism. This article is already a whopping 30 pages on MS Word; we can cut this thing down BIG TIME by not letting every tin-foil Rense reader copy and paste her or his favorite paragraph out of a Jim Marrs book. ChrisRay6000 (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The contents of this article are all notable IMHO. I fail to see why this article needs a complete or major rewrite. Wikipedia does not exist to promote one person's opinion and it does not publish POV articles, and is of course not censored. This article is in no way POV, it is a very informative and well written article about a very notable topic. LightAnkhC|MSG 00:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Concerning the removal of categories...I personally think that the "UFOs in popular culture"

Use in film and television" sections can go...I don't think that they are necessary to the article.LightAnkhC|MSG 00:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Some specific changes

Hi everybody, as stated above this site is going to undergo some imminent, severe changes. I'll start with a general description of what I think needs to get done, and then I'll offer some specific recommendations.

1. Sources

The sources for this article speak for themselves. Between the guy who relied on an "amateur astronomer poll" from "International UFO Reporter" and the guy who relied on "ufoevidence.org"'s forums (FORUMS) are a whole lot of people, including myself, who are at least slightly irritated that this entire article was written by people with a deliberate disdain for intellectual integrity.

2. Language

As indicated above, and as should be obvious to anyone with even a slight amount of incredulity at this article's presentation, the language of this article communicates solely the idea that UFOs as alien intergalactic craft are real, and that everyone who dares question this fact is either a "dogmatic skeptic" or, worse, a "government cover-up" participant. This is an inexcusable attack on academic neutrality, a condition that demands explanation of the fact that the UFO phenomenon has many plausible, rational explanations.

3. Organization

"1.2.2.: Other sightings."
"2.3 Explanations and Opinions
"2.3.1. Some Popular ideas for explaining UFOs."

Enough said.

Some specific recommendations:

-This article is long due for a grammatical overhaul. Awkward sentences abound. The only thing worse than an article on a paranormal topic written by a credulous die-hard is an article on a paranormal topic written by a drunk, credulous die-hard, and that it seems is what happened here.

-All of the sources need to be reviewed. All sources based on forums and blogs will be deleted and new citations will need to be provided.

-All of the sources that rely on people of, er, questionable integrity (J. Hynek, the various self-published UFO die-hards, etc.) need to be carefully assessed and more reliable people need to be found to corroberate or explain the findings of believing UFOlogists. This article needs to be presented in a carefully neutral manner and to that effect not all believers need to be scrapped, but surely no one can deny that the scholarly spirit in this article is almost entirely absent.

-The "Skeptical" section needs to be completely re-tooled so as not to sound like the presentation of a bunch of whining curmudgeons. Science and UFO theory need to be integrated to present the beliefs in and explanations for the UFO phenomenon in a much more balanced manner.

And so on.

Just to give everyone a heads up so that there will be no surprise. Serious changes need to be made, to the benefit of both skeptics and believers - but most of all, to intellectual and academic honesty in general. ?Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlray (talk ? contribs) 05:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is properly sourced. It's not up to one single editor to decide whether or not he/she likes the sources. "the language of this article communicates solely the idea that UFOs as alien intergalactic craft are real" I disagree with that. Nowhere does the article implie whether or not something does exist or not. The article is perfectly NPOV. As stated above: The article should remain in its current state. LightAnkhC|MSG 00:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against editing of this article as long as it's not what happened to Extraterrestrial hypothesis page recently (see talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Extraterrestrial_hypothesis#Total_overhaul_needed). One person completely rewrote the article to make it suite his world view. He removed a HUGE amount of sourced information, only explanation being "the author might be UFO believer". Actually I'm afraid the initiative to edit this page comes from the same person. He has been in trouble with Wikipedia authorities earlier because of his biased editings.128.214.205.5 (talk) 10:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is exactly my concern...in a nutshell, thanks for the warning. Wikipedia is not censored and does not publish opinions. The material of the UFO article is properly sourced and totally NPOV. I have put the UFO article on my watchlist and would appreciate it if others would put it on their watchlist as well. Just to keep an eye on it. LightAnkhC|MSG 15:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest please that at least some reference to Dr Persinger be made? Here is a man who at least has had peer reviewed academic work on the subject published. His Tectonic strain/stress theory being relevant to ufo sightings is one of the very few scientific explanations for at least a part of the phenomena. May I also add that the entire subject is rife with people with no credentials purporting to be experts, people with psuedo-credentials purporting to be experts, and genuine experts out to make a fast buck and as a consequence just about everyone has to be checked and double checked for authenticity. I noticed the entry in relation to the much awaited and much speculated on 'Press club' announcements from late last year - but should it be mentioned here? I ask because just about everyone in attendance at the event has a stake in the movie 'Out of the Blue' and hired the Press club to launch their so called 'conference' - was it really a conference or a promotional push for the movie? I ask these questions not because I support one side or another - all I want is absolute neutrality befitting an encyclopedic entry. OzScot (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Some examples of bias

Here is a list of *just some* of the bias me and my brother have found in this article:

-Paintings in caves are uncritically reported to be UFOs ("flying saucers in cave paintings," heavily-biased language), rather than shapes that an author 20,000 years later decides are shaped like his own personal opinion of how a "UFO" would be shaped. No source given.

-The "The Baptism of Christ" painting is described as a "flying saucer shooting down beams or religious symbolism" - when my brother took editing notes on this one, his simply read, "is this a joke?" It is ludicrous to pretend that describing a 300-year-old painting as containing a 21st-century imprint of what a UFO should look like is ludicrous. No source given.

-A sentence states that a "sighting" in 1561 showed "a multitude of objects seemingly engaged in an aerial battle," citing no source, cleary the author's opinion. The second source that is cited for this does not contain that information.

-The next paragraph begins by saying that "such sightings were usually treated as supernatural portents, angels, and other religious omens." No source given.

-The next sentence reads, "Some contemporary investigators believe them to be the ancient equivalent of modern UFO reports." Not only is no source given, but this is historical imprinting at its worst: there wasn't even the Western concept of the manned spacecraft in such shapes until the early 20th century, and not even the phrase "UFO" for decades afterwards. This is blatant bias.

-The paragraph concludes with the uncritically-offered idea that ancient art portrays "strikingly similar" "UFO reports," without offering the glaring and obvious reality-based explanations.

-The next section begins with the claim that the term "UFO" was invented in the late 1940s. No source given.

-The bullet point concerning Copiapo city gives absolutely no context or description of the supposed "first modern sighting," never mind that that seems to contradict the earlier unsourced claim that "UFOs" were known by the 1940s.

-All of these bullet points uncritically accept the eyewitness' imagined "size of the UFO" without mentioning that none of them would have a proper frame of reference.

-All of these bullets belong in a "famous sightings" article.

-The Fatima sightings in Portugal were never said to be UFOs. No source given for this claim. This is historical imprinting and blatant bias.

-The claim is made that on 2/25/42 the US Army saw a UFO. No source given.

-It is identified by the author as "the West coast air raid." No source given. Terrible grammar.

-The author claims that over 2000 sightings in Scandinavia occurred in 1946. No source given.

-Author makes claims about supposed "ghost rockets" and German V1 and V2 rockets. No source given.

-The Mount Rainier sighting is unsourced.

-The description of the media reaction to the Mount Rainier sighting is unsourced.

-The two photographs of the Kenneth Arnold case are completely irrelevant.

-The author begins the "Other Sightings" section with the un-sourced opinion that his pet example is "perhaps the most significant." No source given.

-The author offers no sources for Ted Bloecher's opinion.

-"Debunkery" is not a word. On top of that, it is a loaded term.

-The phrase "This was more UFO reports for 1947 than most researchers ever suspected" is not only meaningless and unsourced, it indicates a glaring bias on the part of its author.

-The author decides that certain reports "made a persuasive case for a genuine mystery." No source given. No description of who decided these were "mysterious." No intellectual integrity whatsoever.

-The idea of "secretly beginning a formal investigation" is contradictory. No source is given for either of these.

-"Intelligence" is not a branch of the US Government. Generalization demonstrates obvious bias.

-Source given for subsequent quotes was not said by anything who actually studied the cases, as sourcing fraudulently suggests.

-End of article offers the false conclusion that two sightings in Canada were "unsolved;" rather, their own source indicates that this merely means there was no obvious explanation readily available. Author is lying on this count.

-No source is given for the supposedly "official" definition of UFOlogy.

-No source is given for the places and countries that have seriously studied UFOs.

-No source is given for the dates of the investigations.

-The entire "notable UFO-related sightings and events" section should be its own article.

-The fact that the author of the first paragraph of the next section bunches all of his sources together at the end, it is reasonable to infer that none of them actually cogently states what he says they do.

-"This is a photo taken at the press conference" is irrelevant and un-sourced.

-Who could possibly contend that no astronomer, ever, has ever reported seeing a UFO? No source given.

-Badly-formatted footnote to "5%" claim.

-It should be noted the poor framing of the question that produced the "5% claim" result.

-No source is given for either Clyde Tombaugh's or Donald Menzel's reports are given; author fails to mention that Menzel registered his sightings outside the context of them being UFOs and before much of his work. Author is lying on this point, essentially.

-The bullet list of studies (as well as the others jumbled poorly throughout this article) all need to be crammed into their own article.

-This entire bullet list is improperly sourced or not sourced at all.

-Olavo Fuentes's clearly nutjob claim is expressed uncritically as true, that everyone in every government everywhere is deliberately suppressing "the troof" about UFOs.

-Rense.com is NOT a reliable source.

-Most of the bullet point that starts with "The CIA started..." is tangential and irrelevant. Improperly sourced.

-Bullet immediately after that one is also not sourced correctly.

-The next bullet begins with a fragment, the word "defector" is used in a biased fashion and is incorrectly used aside from that, entire bullet is unsourced.

-Final bullet is also incorrectly sourced.

-No justification is given for the dissention from the Condon Report.

-The "physical evidence" section uselessly describes "physical interactions with the environment at close range," describing neither what makes for "close range" nor "physical interactions with the environment," which is a redundancy.

-It is the author's opinion that "sightings" that include "radar sightings" [sic] are "often considered among the best cases" and the author bases this on a fallacy via appeal to authority.

-The phrase "movie film" is hilarious.

-"Photographic evidence...in the infrared spectrum" is a contradiction. No source given.

AND THIS IS JUST THE FIRST 1/3 OF THE ARTICLE.

Any ONE of these points would warrant a makeover for this article. There are literally hundreds more of corrections that need to be made.

Explain to me why you are okay with the quality of this article, given what you have just seen above.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlray (talk • contribs) 07:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have to remind you to stay civil and follow our policy concerning personal attacks WP:CENSOR and WP:AGF. I don't think the article needs to be rewritten to fit someone's world view. I strongly oppose this idea. P.S. I have removed the uncivil content per WP:CIVIL#Removing_uncivil_comments. LightAnkhC|MSG 12:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• I have edited the article in order to address a few concerns. LightAnkhC|MSG 16:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"LightAnkh," please be mindful of the hypocrisy of your comment - myself and others have made it abundantly clear that this article needs serious revisions, and our insight has been met only with invective and personal accusations. You made no noise over the absurd accusation that I am a clone of somebody else, and seem to be working simply to try to discredit anyone who wants to clean up this article rather than actually pursue everyone's mutual goal of a high-quality article.

"The Prophet Yhwh," a homeless person with mental delusions who claimed he could summon UFOs with his mind, is not a good source. Using the poll presented in a "Ufology" magazine as an accurate sample of what every American believes about UFOs is flagrantly dishonest. Never mind the hundreds of corrections that I have prepared and partially demonstrated. Now, please, answer the question posed to all UFO dogmatists who want to leave this page untouchable: given what you have seen above, what makes you think this article is in good shape? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlray (talk • contribs) 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• "You made no noise over the absurd accusation that I am a clone of somebody else" That is because I do not participate in "witch hunts" I comment on the contribution not on the contributer. "and seem to be working simply to try to discredit anyone who wants to clean up this article rather than actually pursue everyone's mutual goal of a high-quality article." That's a untenable accusation which isn't constructive to the discussion. I'm not a "UFO dogmatist" nor anything else. I'm a editor who's concerned about this article ending up beeing rewritten in a manner which mainly favors one point of view. I have addressed a few concerns with my edits to this article. I'd appreciate it if you'd be a bit more civil and would assume good faith, your comments create an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Everyone can edit articles as long as the edits do not break Wikipedia's policies. LightAnkhC|MSG 20:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

people please there is no reason to argue. the etixistence of UFOs is unequestioned, since all it reayll means is that the re is something in the sky that is unkwnon to the observer. sometimes jets ad other ordianry vehicles in fligth can be called UFOs if the person who ntices them is unsure what it is. the only real sdebate should be about UFOs of alien origen since those are the ones that people who are soemtimes saying tha tthose are not do of the existence. Smith Jones (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• True, UFO (unidentified flying object) just means, that the observer can not identify the object he is seeing. "UFO" does not assert what the object's origin is. So in a nutshell: Unidentified flying objects do exist. As I see it: The article does not assert where UFOs are coming from or what they are; and is therefor perfectly NPOV. LightAnkhC|MSG 22:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you believe that the existence of "UFOs" is an unquestionable fact is obvious proof of the position that this article needs to be cleaned up. To refer to the normal phenomena that are responsible for such "sightings" as "UFOs" is to render the term empty and misleading. One thing that this article is sorely lacking in is a discussion of the plausibility of the existence of UFOs, a plausibility which given the laws of physics is nonexistent. This article asserts over and over again that UFOs are in fact alien vehicles and is riddled with opinions, hundreds of unsourced claims and unreliably-sourced claims being its hallmark.

You are both trying to dodge the facts of the matter. Neither of you have addressed the long list of glaring errors and possibly deliberate misrepresentations of facts that pollute this article and prevent it from being informative in any meaningful way. To the contrary, some here seem actively interested in discouraging anyone from noticing the fact that this article, on an important subject that needs to be covered, is a paranormalist's sick joke and little more.

If you can take a look at that long list of errors, multiply it by about five to get an idea of how many errors, unsourced claims, opinions, and fudges there are on this page, and then honestly tell me that everything is fine and that there's no problem here, do so. If not, I am going to act according to my duties as an editor of a page that hundreds of thousands of people rely on for information and give this article the intellectual soundness and informative neutrality that its subject matter demands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlray (talk • contribs) 03:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE fel fre eto make any edits you fele are necessary. every editor has every right to make any chagnes they want so long as they are not obvious vandalism. the whole point of this artencycleodpaid is suppor sed to be a colalboriateve effort, so you are perfectly find in going ahead to make edits without wiating for permission and comment from us. if we have any problems with anything youve done, we will discuss it with you on this talk page as necesar.y Smith Jones (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• "The fact that you believe that the existence of "UFOs" is an unquestionable fact is obvious proof of the position that this article needs to be cleaned up." I disagree with that, the article is a cooperative work of many Wikipedia editors. Nobody holds any rights for the article. Furthermore, I'm not the original author of the article. It was created a long time before I joined Wikipedia. "This article asserts over and over again that UFOs are in fact alien vehicles and is riddled with opinions, hundreds of unsourced claims and unreliably-sourced claims being its hallmark." No it doesn't. It does not assert that unidentified flying objects are indeed some sort of alien spacecraft."You are both trying to dodge the facts of the matter.Neither of you have addressed the long list of glaring errors and possibly deliberate misrepresentations of facts that pollute this article and prevent it from being informative in any meaningful way." Not true, as already mentioned: I have edited the article to address a few concerns. You still do not assume good faith."To the contrary, some here seem actively interested in discouraging anyone from noticing the fact that this article, on an important subject that needs to be covered, is a paranormalist's sick joke and little more." A normal discussion with you is very hard to achieve, since you do not assume good faith and are very impolite and uncivil."If you can take a look at that long list of errors, multiply it by about five to get an idea of how many errors, unsourced claims, opinions, and fudges there are on this page, and then honestly tell me that everything is fine and that there's no problem here, do so." As for me: The article is fine. Editors can disagree with one another. Go ahead and edit, but if it breaks policies such as WP:NPOV or WP:CENSOR or the like, it is likely that another editor will revert it. LightAnkhC|MSG 16:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Nobody holds the rights to the article - you're trying to change my argument. Nobody beleives that it does and you are insulting me by pretending that I do. However, nobody has the rights to distort the truth, and that is what occurs on almost every line on this article.

2. So when an article is riddled with disingenuous language that states that cultures throughout history have observed UFOs (there is no evidence that they had), that there is recorded evidence of meetings with extraterrestrials (there is not), that UFOs are even possible or plausible (they are not), etc. how can you even pretend that it doesn't hold an obvious point of view? How many people have to write that the neutrality of this article is disputed before you believe it?

3. I have been assuming "good faith" with you this entire time, especially now that it has become abundantly clear that you genuinely do not understand that there is a problem here.

4. You did not address my point. By continuing to insult me you are only proving my point.

5. "As for me: The article is fine. Editors can disagree with one another. Go ahead and edit, but if it breaks policies such as WP:NPOV or WP:CENSOR or the like, it is likely that another editor will revert it." It is arrogant of you to pretend that anyone needs your permission to edit an article, and it is appalling that you don't think this article has any problems. With that, thank you, good bye.

Jlray (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)jlray

On a related note, I rewrote the "Baptism of Christ" caption. It's a little long, but I think it's simultaneously about as NPOV and informative as humanly possible.

Abyssal leviathin (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's an unsourced argument that is based on absolutely nothing and is a misleading concept - you can't take the roughly five paintings on this website among the millions of paintings made throughout history as evidence against some sort of "grand coincidence." Jlray (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)jlray

It's not my argument. Check out any random UFO site on the net, and chances are they'll be advancing some version of the "weird flying disks in old paintings are proof that UFOs are an objective phenomenon and not a creation of the 21st century imagination" argument. My rewritten description is an NPOV, and accurate description of an argument advanced by many UFO believers. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to you presenting the idea, but I think that because this article shouldn't be used as a photo gallery for old paintings containing objects that Ufologists can retroactively imprint as UFOs, you should simply make a new article about UFO paraedolia. Jlray (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)jlray

• I think if we just describe it as "Religious painting", we will probably have no problems. This description does not assert what the object actually is. It will be up to the reader on how to interpret the picture. That's NPOV. LightAnkhC|MSG 22:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV, yes, but it's also not very informative. Don't you think adding something like "UFO proponents have drawn comparisons between modern UFO reports and aerial objects depicted in historical art" would be an apropriate addition? Abyssal leviathin (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, why not. I'm fine with that as well :-) LightAnkhC|MSG 17:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Too many Alien ships

Why is this article covered with 'suspected' Alien crafts images? UFO means 'unidentified flying object'- If I throw a pencil in the air & somebody saw if fling by and couldn't identify it, that's a UFO. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you know of any free images to use, go ahead and post them. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I ain't got any unfortunatley (in otherwords - I'm whiner not a provider). Hopefully anyone with images (and the ability to add them) will do so. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to get rid of the massive, congesting, seemingly-random lists of UFO sightings all over the place? Jlray (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)jlray

Once and for all

Will someone please remove the stupid frisbee picture from the article? Too long have we equated UFOs with Flying Saucers. Unidentified Flying Objects are no particular shape and not even commonly a particular shape. Can we please put an obligatory picture of a light in the sky as a picture on the article? Flying saucers are nothing more than an attempt to demonize and make as laughing stock out of eyewitnesses and the whole phenomenon. Seeing things in the sky does not make you crazy. Seeing lights in the sky makes you a person who sees lights in the sky. 70.135.74.224 (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

•   Done I decided to take a image of the Belgian UFO wave LightAnkhC|MSG 16:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Shreveport, Louisiana UFO

See www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?s=7700063. A woman shot a tape of a GIANT UFO. Barksdale AFB REFUSED to examine her tape. 65.163.113.170 (talk) 08:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is related to what has been going on in Stephenville, Texas, so we have a "Flap" going on in TX, LA, AR, OK RIGHT NOW !!!!. 65.163.113.170 (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The USAF does not officially investigate UFO claims (see Project Blue Book, so the non-examination isn't really newsworthy. — Lomn 16:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fix that link, then play the tape on it. The UFO shown appears to be a cross between a cheveron and the B-2, 65.163.113.170 (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The newscaster, who is reporting the event is the one who said that Barksdale REFUSED to examine the tape. See the tape itself. 65.163.113.170 (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations & References

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

UFO Classification split

There's a main article about close encounters in addition to the section of this page. Why not just make one article about all UFO classification systems? This article doesn't need to include the minutiae of the different classification schemes, it's cluttered enough as is. A single centralized article strikes me as being the most beneficial. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

History Section

I think this needs to be reworked. It covers the early years of UFO sightings in great, maybe even a bit excessive detail, then suddenly seems to cut off. The Roswell crash is mentioned only in passing and no mention at all is made of the closely related Alien Contactee and Alien Abduction phenomena. Neither are any sightings in recent times. What do you guys think? Abyssal leviathin (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Notable UFO-related sightings and events

I propose deleting this section, moving the link to the list of UFO sightings to the main heading, and merging the information of the french info release with the section about the press conference into a section that covers those kinds of topics generally. I think we can remove some names from that pointlessly big list about the press conference. We don't need to know everyone that was there. I think we should keep it down to the three or four most notable. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Astronomers and others

Seems like this section is a bit disjointed. I believe we should create a section about UFO witness in general, and put information about astronomers seeing UFOs in there. Then take the remaining info and make a section on major UFO studies and put them in there. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hoaxes

Not much to say, but I don't think this should be a sub-heading within UFOlogy, I think it would do well as its own heading. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

UFO researchers and Organizations

I think there should be some info under these headings. Like who researchers tend to be, how qualified they are, a few notable figures, etc. A brief summary of the major UFO orgs would be nice in the apropriate heading. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

More sections

Don't you think brief sections on abductions, contactees, and UFO crashes would be good additions to this article? Abyssal leviathin (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Check out this artist I ebay item # 170290984509. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.24.104 (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is it going to take ...

...for people to accept the FACT that we're NOT the only planet with life on it ? Independence Day (film) and/or a V (TV series) - like situation ? IF THAT happened, how will wikipedia handle that one ?! 65.173.105.118 (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

We would start writing articles about the invading aliens. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people accept that there are probably planets with life on them other then us. This includes many reputable scientists. What they don't accept is the idea that any of these lifeforms, even assuming they are intelligent, have or are likely to visit us any time soon. Assuming aliens are smart enough to somehow travel to earth to destroy it, but dumb enough to design a computer system which is remotely hackable by humans well I guess we don't have to worry... Nil Einne (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'm going to start doing a massive cleanup of the article, as it definitely needs one. It is not NOPV in several places, some references need to be checked for accuracy, sections need to be deleted, etc. I'm going to begin editing the references to weed out the broken links, POV, and non-referencing links. Also, the pop-culture section should be definitely either shortened or deleted, as the pop-culture references have more to do about Flying saucers than UFOs. I hope to finish this overhaul in about 1-2 weeks. Dylanlip (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Good luck, the True Believers here are averse to almost any quality improvements on this site - see above... Jlray (talk) 04:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Jlray

Jlray, your recent edits removed a lot of content but you didn't explain your reasoning for any of it, so I've reverted them. If you wish to make large changes to an article, it's best to use edit summaries and even post here on the talk page to outline the reasons for your edits. --clpo13_(talk) 04:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. A list of the attendees of a UFO conference in a section where absolutely none of the contents of that conference are discussed in any way is completely irrelevant. That particular section says absolutely nothing about the conference it is titled after and is just more of the endless clutter that has plagued this article since its inception. Or perhaps you didn't notice the ongoing clean-up requests for this article. Jlray (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Jlray

I'm also strongly in favor of getting rid of any and all "pop culture" sections. Anybody else with me on that? Jlray (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Jlray

Also, I'm going to be that jerk who points out that a list of "UFO hoaxes" is redundant. Jlray (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Jlray