Talk:Unidentified flying object/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Other NPOV issues

Holon has restored the following segment which I contend should be removed: "In 1980, a survey of 1800 members of various amateur astronomer associations by Gert Helb and astronomer J. Allen Hynek of the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) found that 24% responded "yes" to the question "Have you ever observed an object which resisted your most exhaustive efforts at identification?"". There are several problems with this. The primary one is that there appears to be only one place this 'study' was printed, which was in a UFO magazine. This is clearly not a reliable third party source. Also, the 'citation' does not even give a link or any way to access the information, so there is no way to verify it. Between the two, this claim is unverifiable, unreliable, and because it does not make clear that it is from a biased source, it is also POV. To make it worse, the statement appears to be making an poorly supported claim about a possibly living person. It should be removed.Locke9k (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the UFO magazine is clearly not an RS regarding this study. Could you elaborate on that point? In any case, the fact is that the citation is a good citation. It is:

Herb/Hynek amateur astronomer poll results reprinted in International UFO Reporter (CUFOS), May 2006, pp. 14-16

Do you doubt that the International UFO Reporter exists or something? If not, what more could you want? There's no WP requirement that all citations be online or easy to find at the local library. Phiwum (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The CUFOS website offers a DVD of all back issues of the journal (their word, not "magazine"). It's expensive, but at least I have no real doubt that the journal exists now. Phiwum (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There are two points. First, this references something that is not the original source of the reference. That is generally not the way things are supposed to be done. So the citation currently inlcuded is actually referencing CUFOS, not the original study. Second, CUFOS is specifically a UFOlogy research center. It is not a mainstream scientific, reliable source. One of the primary problems with this article is that it relies upon these sorts of questionable sources without verification by mainstream sources. A good example of a good source in this article is a reference to a CNN survey on UFO opinions. That is clearly far more reliable from a Wikipedia standoint than CUFOS. It doesnt matter whether they call it a magazine or journal, it is not a peer reviewed scientific journal and it is not a mainstream media source. Because of that fact, we have no way of knowing whether this was a real, statistical, unbiased survey. The current manner of inclusion gives it the level of weight of a peer reviewed or media published study, which is undue and unsupported. I will also note the following quote from Wikipedia:RS which almost certainly applies to CUFOS: "Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience,[3] or extremist may be used as sources of information about themselves" Here is another one from Wikipedia:Fringe theories which applies "While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe, the best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories are independent sources."Locke9k (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure about your first point. If the study has not been published outside of this journal, then the journal is a reasonable citation — aside from your second claim. You say that a CUFOS journal is not a reliable source for the prominence of fringe theories. I can see your point there. Phiwum (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"Because of that fact, we have no way of knowing whether this was a real, statistical, unbiased survey. The current manner of inclusion gives it the level of weight of a peer reviewed or media published study, which is undue and unsupported." This is nonsense. It is a verifiable source. Simply state that it is not published in a peer-reviewed journal if that is your concern, don't just delete it. Also, if you want some caveats placed around the potential for bias, state why and I'll be happy, for one, to review your comments. Hynek was involved, and it is a sample of 1800 astronomers. That's a whopping sample of astronomers, and the results are itneresting irrespective of bias. Of cousre, if you think the results are also questionable, let us know why. Holon (talk) 06:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_and_fringe_sources It is not nonsense. I will quote from this guideline. "Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience, or extremist may be used as sources of information about themselves". Furthermore, "Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance." This survey referenced from a source that promotes fringe views is exactly being used to try to indicate the fringe theory's level of acceptance. Per Wikipedia guidelines, it should be exclcuded. The claim that it should is not nonsense, and in fact it is absolutely supported by the above guidelines. You over and over again keep insisting that the burden is on us to show mainstream science rejects something. In fact, per Wikipedia policy, the burden is clearly and unambiguously on you to provide third party, reliable support for yours. Locke9k (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Until I reread this guideline, I didn't realize how strong the prohibition against this kind of use is. Based on that, I am removing the study. If you want to include it you should show some third party support, explain how you think the above guideline doesnt apply, or try to get the guideline changed. Locke9k (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Prohibition of polls?? Please provide a reliable source, per Wiki policy and guidelines, that states CUFOS is 'extremist', 'fringe', or both. The burden is always on an editor to verify statements and reasons for deleting other editors' work. The criterion is not personal opinion about what is a reliable source. Please keep in mind this is not written as an article on a standard scientific topic: reliable source is not synonymous with peer-reviewed academic material. Most polls are not scientific. Wikipedia doesn't "prohibit" polls. Just add statements to express your concerns (e.g. not a survey reported in scientific literature). Holon (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Since I am the one to originally provide this particular source (I have the copy of the CUFOS-published journal the poll results are in--it's quite real), some details about the poll:

• Poll originally published in Fall 1980 issue of CUFOS Bulletin, no longer published. Republished International UFO Reporter, May 2006
• Poll conceived by amateur astronomer Gert Herb as a companion to previously conducted polls conducted by astrophysicist Peter Sturrock of fellow professional astronomers (5% reported UFOs in Sturrock's poll; 80% thought them worthy of study).
• Poll also inspired by Arthur C. Clarke's assertion in his 1968 book Promise of Space that amateur astronomers (AAs) never report UFOs. Herb wrote he had no idea whether Clarke might be right and how the poll results would turn out.
• Herb's poll conducted under supervision of CUFOS and astronomer J. Allen Hynek, who had been a consultant to the USAF UFO investigations for 20 years.
• Cooperation with three major amateur astronomer organizations was obtained (Astronomical League, Assoc. of Lunar and Planetary Observers, ALPO, Int'l Occultation Timing Assoc., IOTA. The Amer. Assoc. of Variable Star Observers declined to participate.)
• 7800 questionnaires were mailed out; 1805 people ultimately responded (23%)--a high return rate for a mailer poll. The point is, this is a very good statistical sample of the amateur astronomer membership of these three organizations, one of the main criteria as to whether the poll is scientific. (A very low return rate might not be scientific, i.e., a good representative sample of the polled population.)
• The smaller organizations ALPO and IOTA, with total memberships of 726, returned 57% of the questionnaires received, an extremely good representative sample. These are also comprised of people devoted to more specialized aspects of amateur astronomy, requiring special skills and often more specialized equipment. Interestingly this group of more experienced amateurs also reported the highest percentage of UFOs (28%).
• Instead of being asked whether they had ever seen a UFO (in which the answer might depend on the pollees personal definitions of what constitutes a "UFO"), they were instead asked "Have you ever observed an object which resisted your most exhaustive efforts at identification?" 24% of respondees replied "Yes" to this question.
• The poll also broke down sightings into five classes, based on trajectories and apparent angular size: Point or extended sources in uniform motion; Point or extended sources in erratic motion, or "object observed at short enough distance as to leave no doubt in observer's mind that something strange was observed." Unfortunately the percentage breakdown was not given in the article. However, it was noted that the last category of weird "close encounter" objects was reported by four of the more senior observers. Of all "high strangeness" cases--either erratic motion or "close encounter"--14 were observed through telescopes (3%) and 17 though binoculars (4%). Of all reported "UFOs", 15% were observed through telescopes and 9% through binoculars. 9 were photographed, with some details provided in article.
• A companion question was asked about attitudes towards UFOs. 67% thought UFOs certainly, probably, or possibly exist. 33% thought they probably or definitely did not exist.
• The article itself mentions that in spite of the large number of respondees, conceivably the poll might still not be fully scientific, i.e., those who had sightings might be more apt to believe in the existence of UFOs and might be more motivated to fill in the questionnaire and return it. (However, note the previous result that at least a third of the responders seemed very skeptical of the existence of UFOs.) The true percentage of those who had sightings therefore might lie between the 5% who reported UFOs out of ALL questionnaires mailed out, and the 24% reporting UFOs of those who returned the questionnaires.
• The article also provided the usual skeptical caveats that amateur astronomers, even though more experienced in distinguishing between known and unknown sky phenomena, are just as susceptible to psychological aberrations as the general public, might be just as biased, and even if the reports are accepted at face value, being unable to identify something does not mean it's an alien spaceship, it is merely unidentified, etc., etc.
• However, it does conclude that even if UFO is defined in the most generic sense of merely something unidentified, amateur astronomers certainly DO see and report UFOs or "things in the sky that defy explanation."

I fail to see what is wrong with citing these poll results. Personal opinions of editors here about the journal or parent organization are irrelevant. This was a large survey conducted under scientific supervison with a good representative sample of the intended population. Care was taken in the phrasing of the primary polling question to avoid definition bias in the results. Attitudes were polled to detect possible respondee bias and the possibility of selection bias in the the respondees was noted and what that might mean in the percentages. It was also noted that the results didn't prove anything other than AAs, just like the general population, do see and report UFOs, whatever they might be.

It strikes me this is as close to a good statistical, unbiased, and scientific survey as you are going to get of AAs. There is no comparable poll in the skeptical camp to support various statements, such as by astronomer [Phil Plaitt]], that AAs literally never report UFOs. (Plaitt's "poll" seems to be that AAs never report UFOs personally to him--boy is that "scientific" polling! ;-) ) Dr Fil (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I know this is a delayed response, but thanks very much for that detailed information. Trust me when I say that nothing is wrong with citing these poll results. Your analysis is spot on. The worst case scenario (assuming nobody wants to claim scientific fraud!) is exactly what you say: 5% of ALL. People who know a little about statistics get so hung up on whether samples are random, so that inferential stats can be used, they sometimes lose all perspective. You can't infer the statistics (e.g. proportions who respond in a category for a question) to the population of all astronomers from a sample with a 23% response rate. So what? What you say is exactly right: there's a lower limit on the 'actual percentage'. There is a whole range of more substantial limitations about the information you get; but these apply to virtually all professionally conducted polls and they don't alter the information, they just limit it. Again, thanks very much for the detailed information. Holon (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Academic research on UFO phenomena

There's some anthropology about people who believe they have been abducted, also some psychiatric literature on them. There are conventions of believers and abductees, and sometimes, just of abductees or other contactees. It's quite interesting. Planet Flipside (www.planet-flipside.com, I think) tries to organize some of that information and has itself been the subject of a small amount of ethnographic research. If anyone knows of other online communities organized around UFO's, please try to post the links here or in the article itself.Levalley (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley

geny

is a super singer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.80.161.155 (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No mention of recent findings Re: ODES,TTTLRS and UFOS

ODES Other Demensional Eneties and TTTLRS Trans Time Travelers not mention in article. Recent Ufology research indicates that Beings from other demensions and even beings from future time may be involved with the UFO event! Thanks! (Dr. Edson Andrfe'J) Andreisme (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

External link to ufo.dailysite.com/info

Hi,

I would like to make sure I am not breaking any Wikipedia policies by requesting an external link to http://ufo.dailysite.com/info -- this reference page contains articles on UFO and Paranormal Space activity. It is a not for profit resource that concentrates on documenting daily UFO reports.

The current editors of the requested external link are: a candidate PhD physics researcher from the University of California, Berkeley and a writer from The Examiner.

I would appreciated any feedback. I do not wish to add the link myself to make sure there is no conflict of interest concerns.

Thank you O.sadeghpour (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No thanks. See WP:COI and WP:EL. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

A link to alleged infrared film

Linked here[1] with no comment on veracity of film, except that the article needs a citation to infrared.

59.101.0.53 (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Bob White Object?

Recently I saw this thing called bob white object in History channel. seems noteworthy since there's actually an object. (what exactly the object is is pretty disputable. One testing say it's only some commercial alloy with but they got a few "scientists" on film saying that it's super advanced boohoo...

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosophy.dude (talk • contribs) 13:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Note worthy enough to include in main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosophy.dude (talk • contribs) 13:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientific status

I want to summarize, mostly for the record, a key point concerning the rationale for the following statement in the intro:

Very little peer-reviewed literature has been published in which scientists have proposed, studied or supported non-prosaic explanations for UFOs.

The original statement was that Although various conspiracy theories and pseudosciences revolve around UFO sightings, no mainstream scientific support for non-natural explanations of UFOs has emerged.

That previous statement was (a) vague and (b) constructed with a passive voice. Both commonly produce weasel wording. This was compounded by the conjunction of a vague statement about pseudosciences with a statement about the mainstream scientific status that made the sentence as a whole quite illogical. Why the form, although pseudosciences revolve around UFOs, there is no mainstream support? In what sense do the two parts of the statement have contrary implications?

Clearly we should use peer-reviewed literature where possible, particularly where scientific status is concerned. However, there is something of a double bind where it comes to emphasizing the peer-reviewed literature:

One cannot claim that a lack of peer-reviewed literature supports a position based on statements readers can verify in peer-reviewed literature.

Wikipedia most fundamentally requires verifiable sources for conclusions and if the content can't be verified in verifiable sources, it has to be removed. The active expression of the point clarifies the issue: scientists either study and support, or study and reject. Verifiable sources are needed to include any conclusions about the posited reasons for lack of attention in peer-reviewed publications -- all that stands as verifiable (from database searches) is that there are very few publications, though there are some in which views are expressed that have not been referenced. Holon (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Chinese lantens

Shouldn't these be mentioned? They've had quite a bit of news coverage in the UK recently, eg [2] - 86 hits in Google News complete archives. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

The introduction does not seem to have a truly neutral point of view. It does not fully represent the possibility that UFOs could be explained in an unconventional manner. rouenpucelle (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rouenpucelle, I don't necessarily disagree but please attempt to suggest something before tagging. It is very difficult to cover all nuances in an introduction. An intro needs to provide the most essential information about the topic (definition, origion of term etc.). Holon (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules about neutral point of view don't require that we "fully represent the possibility that UFOs could be explained in an unconventional manner." Since UFO's are a fringe theory, and per WP:UNDUE we should emphasize that UFOs can probably be explained by conventional science. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Many events/things initially described as UFOs have been explained with certainty by conventional science. Some are awaiting explanation. None have been explained with certainty in "an unconventional manner". HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead seems fairly well-balanced to me (though I fixed one grammatical issue, and defined OVNI). is there a particular thing that strikes you as un-nuetral?

see also section

The 'See Also' section here is for lack of a better word bloated. Many of the topics in this section have articles that are stubs, violate npov or lack citations. 'See also' can not be an exhaustive list of every related topic and it should not be. Is there any way we can wittle this section down a little and remove some of the less relevent items? Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I've added by the observer to the opening sentence, as it seems obvious that this is a necessary qualification. There have been many cases, for example, where ordinary aircraft have been initially considered to be UFOs - but only by the observer(s); the pilots inside them were not confused by the identity of their craft. Obscurasky (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

More recent UFO studies could be mentionedAnd" Experencers"

More recnt UFO sightings as well as the "Experencer" phenomenon(Used for UFO abductees and contactees) Great article!ANDREMOIMOI (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

British government and UFO

British government releases UFO documents; 6,000 pages of sightings This should be included in the article.Mohamed Magdy (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Add

A section on disclosures of UFO cases made public by governments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.113.143 (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Passoria UFO Photo

According to Google Maps, there is no such place as "Passoria, NJ."PhD (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There was a revert to a deprecated version. That's been fixed. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Conclusions...and summary of the real unknowns.

For a subject that has been studied for over 60 odd years, I think the readers of this article deserve some sort of conclusions, since enough is known about the subject to warrant this.

Perhaps the summarized conclusions should read something like this:

"Take out the occasional hoaxes, and the common misidentified items, and there is an extreme body of evidence for very complex objects of unknown origin and construct conducting intelligent observation of the earth. To then call these objects "alien" is of no stretch of imagination when all other possibilities are genuinely ruled out."

Or something along those lines.

--75.175.76.49 (talk) 06:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't draw conclusions. It can document the conclusions of others if they can be found in reliable sources. HiLo48 (talk) 08:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, from the available evidence I would draw exactly the opposite conclusion to the contributor above. An extreme body of evidence?? Skeptic2 (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Therefore, no real conclusions can be drawn and it should be left to the reader to decide. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, of course, an obvious conclusion can be drawn from the failure of pro-UFO believers to come up with anything convincing in over 60 years of searching.Skeptic2 (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I would in no way endorse this "conclusion" being proffered. Conclusions are for thesis assignments. WP is not a research assignment. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Kenneth Arnold sightings

Overall the design to me does look to good, or to normal, it looks like todays flying wings, (which where almost unknown in their time). Still I like to remind that in 1947 already flying wings where made, like the Northrop "YB-49". And it might be a captured German plane after WWII, then the plane might be a "Ho 2-29", or something in the range like such a thing. Even in German those new plane insights where militarily secrets, as they where by then testing anti radar stuff. Germany was testing bombers so also was aware of their weight lift ratio compared to normal planes. The new concepts never made it into the war since it ended. They where not ready for mass production yet, but they have been made and where designed, tested and improved. If the war would have taken longer those planes would have been mass produced. (we're lucky the war ended). Oh and just for the record Northrop Grumman had acquired this technology, and makes these days flying wings like the B2. This pilot might have seen a test version, or just a another Grumman blackproject version who was not to be published for the public. I think it is still an UFO, we still dont know the exact plane name, but its like there is German connection here. Its not something from outer space. The Germans scientist themselves where great engineers for their time 82.217.115.160 (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Other possibilities?

• Extradimensional aliens
• Aliens from another Universe
• Time Travellers
• Demons and angels
• Military Experimental craft
• Craft from "Atlantis", "Lemuria"
• Craft from other past civilizations, such as that from South America (The Nasca Lines), India
• Chinese candle balloons (very often mistaken for ufos, and invisible to radar) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.115.160 (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The majority of the article says the "UFO" is either a hoax and people are crazy OR that someone "out there" has found Earth. What of these other possibilities? I have a book about the Bermuda Triangle and it has a pix of a model of a jet plane, which looks like a Mirage or a US fighter plane, is made out of gold, found in a Mayan or Incan tomb that is several thousand years old.65.173.105.131 (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, modern planes are based off of the best fliers on this planet (birds). The F-14 Tomcat design came from watching hawks in a speed dive (They fold their wings back). But I'm pretty sure, if it came from a Mayan temple, it didn't have a Cockpit and Turbo-thrust engine. You also have to realize, the Military keeps secrets because it gives us an advantage over those that would mean us harm. I don't think Sadam had any idea what a B-2 could do until the bombs were dropping on Bagdad in Desert Storm. Had he known, the sky would have been blanketed with AA Guns all night long (The golden BB theory - its what brought down the F117 in Southern Europe. Put enough lead in the air and you will hit something important). So I'd say that everything on your list is unproven, aside from Military Experimental Craft. Angels and Demons could be an explanation for the more religious (Mostly from the "Book" religions). Atlantis never existed, I have no clue what Lemuria is, and we are the most advanced civilization in this planet's history. Time travel is not possible, as by simply traveling to the past you change the present, thereby negating your need and/or desire to go to the past (Time Paradox Theory). You can't travel forward, as it has not happened yet. And as a note, Aliens from another Universe is the same as Extradimensional Aliens. In the mathimatical sense, it it physically impossible to travel in more than 4 dimensions (Height, Width, Depth and Time). Scientifically, it is possible, but it would be a one way trip, as once you leave your reality, it no longer exists for you (Multiverse Paradox Theory). SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

UFO and Ufology articles

Currently there is a much overlap between the two articles. The ufology one talks about the various studies and UFO organizations, while the UFO article should, IMO, mainly detail the history of strange aerial sightings and perhaps offer speculations on the possible causes of why the sightings have allegedly occurred: psychological reasons, misidentification of celestial and meteorological phenomena, hoaxes etc, and finally something about the ETH and other fringe theories. The 'UFOs in popular culture' should be changed to 'UFOs in modern culture' and expanded discuss the impact of UFOs in the media, entertainment industry, new age/religion etc.

That said, I suggest moving the relevant UFO investigation sections to the ufology article.

Any opinions? 80.221.43.22 (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of Terms

As I first time contributor here, I am finding it difficult to discuss improvements to the article without at least some general discussion of the topic. However, I also understand that this is not a discussion forum.

Overall, the main article is well-done and balanced. I offer a few observations below.

1. UAP is preferable to UFO for a couple of reasons absent from the article. In the context of the more credible incidents, only the term “unidentified” is accurate, or is not an assumption. Human beings and our sensors detect what appear to be objects, and there have been incidents in which evidence suggested physical reality, such as indentations in soil that suggested that an object with physical mass and weight came to rest on the surface of the Earth. But for the most part, there is a visual “sighting” and sometimes radar corroboration which suggests but does not prove the presence of a physical object. Our senses and sensors can easily be fooled, even by our own technology. While it may be that I am splitting hairs, what appears to be an object could also be, for example, a hologram. Therefore, the acronym UFO assumes the presence of an object.

The term “flying” is also problematic. Granted, the word “flying” is used to describe the movement of lighter than air vehicles, but “flying” usually refers to heavier than air craft which use air moving past an airfoil to create lift. Again, I may be splitting hairs, but it is difficult to reconcile the non-ballistic movements at impossibly high speeds described in many incidents with what we would define as “flying”. If a UAP was a heavier than air object that remained above the Earth’s surface by use of a science and technology that defied gravity, is it flying? If the UAP is not a physical object but we perceive movement through our atmosphere, is it flying?

2. The last sentence of the second full paragraph of the main article is “Only between 5% to 20% of anomalous sightings can be classified as unidentified in the strictest sense (see below for some studies).” “Only” is a minimizing term, similar to “merely”. The subjective decision to use it here is more argumentative than informative. Consider how inappropriate the use of “only” is with the exact same percentages, but applied to different topics:

Only between 5% to 20% of domestic airline flights are crashing shortly after takeoff.

Only between 5% to 20% of this car model are exploding violently after a rear impact.

Only between 5% to 20% of test subjects suffered a fatal brain hemorrhage after taking this drug.

I would delete the word “only”. Further, there is no frame of reference to justify “only” anymore than there would be to substitute the word “incredibly”, although the latter arguably makes more sense. The high end of the range, 20%, is a higher percentage than many people might expect, and certainly doesn’t justify the word only:

Twenty percent of anomalous sightings can be classified as unidentified in the strictest sense.

Really? One in five anomalous sightings are unidentified?

I offer my observations because the quality of the main article is better than I expected, and because the topic overall suffers from assumptions, imprecise use of terms and ridicule. Those who ridicule the topic exhibit intellectual cowardice, and the best weapon against ridicule is accurate use of terms, eliminating or at least acknowledging assumptions, and as much objectivity as possible. Duncanives (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is about UFOs, a very common term, known to most English speakers. An article about UAPs would be an entirely different thing, using terminology known only to enthusiasts and a handful of others. It would attract a different readership. Create such an article if you wish, but WIkipedia MUST have an article on UFOs.

I have no problem with tidying up the language. It has improved a lot over the past 6 months, from a pretty poor start, but more help on that front is always welcome.

As for ridiculing UFOlogists, it's the bad science and poor intellectual rigour shown by many that leads to such things as the unhealthy state this article WAS in until recent times. It may sound rude, but since they claim to be scientific, they deserve ridicule.

Now, back to maintaining a balanced article. HiLo48 (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

occurring to me

i seen several times in sky in night times a star like a witch is moving in high speed . but i didn't think that could be a universal dead particle[any star ,stone , similar ones] hence i think why should this could be ufo. pleas repeat to dis message . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.206.100 (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

They're going to come for you now....  :) McCaster (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

UFOs from Earth

The airline pilots who reported high flying objects probably saw U2 spy aircraft.

Take a look at the Stealth bomber from directly in front and it has a classic saucer shape. I reckon somebody saw such a plane on a test flight and reported it as a UFO.

Most of these UFO nuts can't accept that we are probably alone in the galaxy at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how massive this galaxy is? The sheer numbers involved in calculating the billions and billions of stars and star systems, and hundreds of billions of planets, and knowing that well over 99.9% of this Galaxy remains unexplored, how could you possibly make such an arrogantly ignorant claim? We know practically nothing about interstellar planets in our own tiny fraction-of-a-dot Galaxy, let alone the entire Universe, as we are pigeon holed to Earth and naturally its the only damn planet we have ever known personally, and guess what, Earth amounts to FAR less than a grain of sand. That was an extremely ignorant claim my friend. Go watch Carl Sagan's Cosmos, maybe, and you might just get a grasp on how vast this Universe is.--206.28.43.164 (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead image inappropriate

Someone's messed around with this article. The lead image shows a debunking of an apparent UFO sighting from a space craft. It should not be the main image for this article. A more traditional UFO image should be used. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that, but why two of the images of the collage are from Billy Meier? Considering the story he told, I think less popular footage but still showing UFO taken by anonymous people should be used. I will consider changing that collage if nobody has something against that decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.109.229 (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

My fault, there are not two from Billy Meier, they are 2/3 of the total! It definitively needs more variety —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.109.229 (talk) 09:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Now deleted as a copyvio. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 109.152.153.134, 11 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Entire page requires grammatical and syntax clean-up.

109.152.153.134 (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Thanks for the observation. The edit semi-protected template is used to request specific changes. If you want to detail some of the changes in a 'please change X to Y' manner, please start another edit request. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Page is protected from editing

Please merge section from "1561 Nuremberg event" in the Sun dog article. --79.168.10.241 (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

POV

Someone who hates the idea of UFOs edited this. I've fixed a few things at the beginning but, in general, a rewrite of the article might be of help. Some of the sources cited seem unreliable and there is a slant... and not a slight one... that the whole phenomenon is just stupid. This is the kind of problem one has when people who are not scientists pretend that they are. It isn't enough that research is done. It has to be good research based on good sources (and you have to know what a good source is). Also, neutrality doesn't mean "being polite." It means neutral. Gingermint (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you certainly have changed the POV of the article, and I've changed it straight back. That's not because of any opinion I might have of those changes, but because they really are so sweeping that they need a lot more discussion here, and ideally some new sources. One post from you on a Talk page is not a Discussion. You need to justify each of the particular changes you want to make, and wait until others respond. Just complaining about the current article isn't a justification for changing it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not necessary to 'justify each of the particular changes you want to make and wait until others respond' in order to make edits to Wikipedia articles. Did the makers of the original (in some cases POV) edits that were reworded by Gingermint go through that procedure before making them? I doubt it. So Gingermint would have as much right to revert those edits as you would have to revert Ginermint's. Having looked briefly through the edits Gingermint made, I agree that there was and is a POV slant in various places, and that the sources cited are inadequate to justify some of the statements in the article. Ben Finn (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't about liking or not liking UFO's, the article needs to reflect the information in the sources that we have, and there is virtually no good scholarship supporting the existance of UFO's. Since UFO and extraterrestrials(and most of the associated conspiracies) are fringe science they need to be written skeptically according to wikipedia policy. Please seek consensus before making any more changes. In this article it's pretty common that someone comes bringing The Truth, but wikipedia isn't about Truth. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, this article is about UFOs, not extraterrestrials; you are conflating the two. Secondly, it's questionable whether UFOs are 'fringe science' since there have been few scientific papers published about them, for or against. However there have been scientific and other investigations into UFOs, e.g. by various governments, not conducted through scientific journals. You say there is 'virtually no good scholarship' supporting the existence of UFOs; that is debatable: there are quite a few scholarly books on the subject, written both by scientists (e.g. Stanton Friedman) and non-scientists (e.g. Timothy Good). As well as, naturally, lots of popular non-scholarly books (as with any subject). Ben Finn (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The term "UFO" is often used to imply extraterrestrials, and a quick look through this article, specifically the UFO Hypothesis section, shows that many of the popular explanations for UFO's are fringe science. I should have been more specific, there is almost no good scholarship supporting the paranormal explanations for UFO's(extraterrestrials, parallel dimensions, occult). Voiceofreason01 (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you re parallel dimensions & occult, but there's nothing paranormal about extraterrestrials. AFAIK most astronomers & biologists believe there are probably innumerable other intelligent civilisations in the universe, and of course quite a bit of scientific research (and good scholarship), including government-funded research, is based on this hypothesis, e.g. SETI. Re scholarship about the possibility that UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin, see the authors mentioned above, for example, and quite a few others. Their work is good scholarship in my opinion (e.g. carefully researched and sourced) - scholarship needn't consist of research papers in scientific journals. Ben Finn (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Some astronomers and biologists believe that there may be extraterrestrial life in the universe. Assuming that there may be intelligent extraterrestrial life in the universe(SETI) is a long, long way from saying that said life has visited earth and I don't see any reliable scholarship saying otherwise. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

...and the article is not about extra-terrestrials. It is about unidentified flying objects. If they're unidentified, we cannot say or even suggest where they're form or who's driving. That would, by definition, be speculation, and inappropriate in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that there are many people editing this article who are not scientists yet believe they can, I guess, pretend they are scientists and edit away with arguments that "there is virtually no good scholarship" and other such things. Frankly, one should be qualified to form such an opinion. Gingermint (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"An influential scientifically skeptical group that has for many years offered critical analysis of UFO claims is the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI)." Who says they are influential? And are they not a controversial group, often being accused of making things up and even rejected by many in the scientific community? So I changed it to "A scientifically skeptical group..." and "claim to offer critical analysis." Sometimes the articles in their magazine are really good, well thought-out but that is not always the case. It is not a peer reviewed magazine so we may not expect they always live up to their press. Gingermint (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about "influential". It's a weasel word. I've removed it. I'm not sure if it's fair to call them controversial. Having disagreement with Uri Geller and Scientologists pretty much puts them in the middle of mainstream science. The Wikilink in that sentence takes readers to an article on CSI. Perhaps your disagreement needs to be more with that article. HiLo48 (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The skeptic argument is rather obviously becoming more POV than the rest of the article, and I've boldly removed such WP:weasel words as i saw in the lead, but they should all be summarily removed. Where necessary I suggest terms such as "alleged"- NPOV- in preference to "supposed", which implies suppositions not evident in the present article. I do hope the skeptic community can do better. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 15:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Tidying up

I've done quite a bit of tidying up of the article, primarily the Investigations section - whose subsections & headings were jumbled - and the intro. I haven't attempted work on the lengthy start of the Investigations section which needs careful attention, I suggest by moving bits of it elsewhere and/or deleting bits that are repeated elsewhere. Ben Finn (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is showing potential to be a WP:Good Article. But I do see stylistic issues, incl. overuse of skeptic-POV terms like "supposed" (which I've now removed two examples of). Is there some reason why the more neutral terms [like "alleged"] dont work here? ..Oh... I see this is being addressed above re: a recent spate involving weasel words. Yes then. Carry on!- A skeptic POV is just as POV as 'goth fandom', and this quite well-written article currently suffers from the former. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 14:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

stealth bomber

There is some footage of the stealth bomber being trundled out of the hanger for the first time in front of an admiring crowd.

As soon as the front view was fully revealed the first thought that crossed my mind was, "There's the UFO". Looks uncannily like the model of a UFO that Patrick Moore thought a great joke on one of his "Sky at Night" programmes.

I think that a lot of UFO sightings must have been the secret flying tests of the stealth bomber where somebody caught a brief glimpse and reported it as a UFO. Even the triangular UFO could have been a glimpse of the rear of a stealth bomberAT Kunene (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a valid personal hypothesis, but shouldn't be considered anything that can be put into the article as it is drawing your own conclusions. The^FSAviator ( T • C ) 20:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Section 3.6 - Astronomers

There is more than one "Air Force" in the world, you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.22.23 (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I had a stab that it would be an ignorant and/or arrogant American that wrote that, and fixed it. HiLo48 (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

My Recent Edits

Okay, so I just made some edits to the page, mostly just simply minor grammatical corrections (in my opinion they were corrections). However, I did feel that some of the language could have been written a little more "encyclopedic" in style, which in a sense goes a litter further than changing grammar by itself, but to some extent the general format of how the sentences read. In addition, I did also add a quick link to the foo fighter page, just after the reference to World War II, and immediately after that a quick mention of the Roswell incident and the Kenneth Arnold coinage of the term flying saucer, but I kept them quite short & to the point, as Kenneth Arnold at least has a mention & short section later in the article. I felt that these were worthwhile edits to make. All of what I have mentioned so far has only been edits to the first paragraph of the first section/heading.

The only other thing I changed was adding the term "mystery airships" just prior to the discussion about the flying saucer term under the Terminology heading, as the term did exist at least five decades prior to the K. Arnold sighting and whatnot, and its common use persisted well into the 20th century. No where else in the article was I able to find a mention of that particular term, but the mention I made was again, short & to the point.

So if anybody has any issues with any of these edits, please feel free (neigh, feel encouraged!) to further discuss it here and see if we can come to a consensus/compromise. I personally feel that the page has been improved upon in useful but non-redundant ways, but if your opinion differs, please do share your views. Thanks guys.

Also, would it hurt to have a little mention of like, say, The Disclosure Project/Steven Greer/CSETI on this page? What do you all think?

Psychonaut25 (13375p34k!) 4:30 AM EST, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn’t the Intro rather misleading as currently written? It says: “governments have investigated UFO reports, often from a military perspective” but it’s not clear what this means. In the case of the UK government, UFO reports were investigated by the MoD only to satisfy themselves that they were of no defence significance (which, in practice, meant nothing had slipped through the air defences). After that, they took it no further. And of course they never did find any of defence significance.

The intro also quotes the long-secret UK Condign Report as saying that “State military organizations, particularly in Russia, have done ‘considerably more work (than is evident from open sources)’”. But the reference itself which you link to (page 3 of the Executive Summary) makes clear that the work they did was on plasmas and RF fields, not on UFOs. Hence the relevance of this statement to the article as a whole is doubtful, let alone its place in the intro.

In fact, the conclusions of the Condign Report totally demolish the notion that the UK government knew that UFOs are alien spacecraft and were covering it up. Wouldn't this be a more relevant fact to include in the intro to this article? Others with local knowledge might be able to argue the same for the investigations of other nations.

Skeptic2 (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Made a couple other small changes. Added "foo fighters" to the Terminology heading.

Also I think I would add to the Steven Greer question, if you do agree that at least a mention of him & Disclosure Project are worthwhile, which heading do you think it would be best under? If I were to add such a mention, I would be sure to include that him & every other member of the Disclosure Project (and CSETI if it were also mentioned...I think TDP is actually part of CSETI but I might be incorrect) are all proponents of the extraterrestrial hypothesis, hence their name & their mission.

Psychonaut25 (13375p34k!) 6:05 AM EST, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

UFO are litmus tests for new agents

UFO's were a mainstay test for intelligence agents in America for a number of years. The creation of a distinctive story, provision of intelligence reports to the agent and thenstory is analysed the source of the bogus intelligence is identified, the agent is downgraded or dismissed. There are no UFO's only fa== Books categorized ==

I see there are books that are listed as General, and some listed as Skeptical, Philosophy, Tech ect... How is this decided? Several of the general books are skeptically minded. Maybe we should remove the general category and force each book into a more specific category? Or maybe it could be in more than one category? Or remove all categories and just make it books? Putting them in categories seems so POV. Sgerbic (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead photo

Why is the first photograph in this article of an IFO? Surely a better illustration of the subject matter would be something that remains unidentified. --taras (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Ya agreed, we should definitly have a more interesting photo to lead with.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Remove the second picture please

The second picture is NOT of a UFO, though the original research of some Wikipedia author has indicated to him or her otherwise. Remove the picture and find one that is painting of a real UFO. I promise you, there are plenty to be found in various five-and-dimes around the United States.

128.59.171.194 (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

If a picture of what was known for certain to be a REAL UFO existed, this article would be very different. HiLo48 (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I could not find any WP:RS to back up the speculation that "This image is one of the best showing a disc shaped object emitting beams of light. It is not in the shape of a cloud, nor does it have angels or cherubim floating around. As most Religious paintings duplicate scenes from previous eras, one has to ask where this artist got the data to paint his version."....so I removed it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I don't know about you guys but I pronounce it "you-foe" not U.F.O 94.4.72.212 (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I pronounce the letters. (i.e.the latter form) HiLo48 (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The pronounciation "yoo-foe" is the way it was intended to be sounded by the person who created the word. It is perfectly legitimate and I tend to use both depending on circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.83.184 (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

National bias

Why does the 'White House position' place so highly on the page? Likewise, why are Projects Sign, Grudge and Blue Book given such prominence? There are other parts relating to the US throughout the article, without the need to swamp this Wikipedia article with North American material - unless it really is the intention of the community to present UFOs as being almost exclusively a form of American folklore. One would assume that (with more eyes to look skywards) there ought to be more unidentified flying objects seen in China or India. Or does all this boil down to interest in 'Independence Day', 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' and so on? -- Singe_onion (talk) 10:10, February 26th 2012 (GMT)

You're right in principle. However I would imagine that most of the english sources related to UFOs focus on the phenomenon as it exists in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.90.132 (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Definition of UFO

The statement that, "... technically a UFO refers to any unidentified flying object ..." is not accurate. That is simply the literal full form of the acronym. Technically the word had very specific uses by the people who created it. Official definitions went through several stages of evolution culminating in AFR 200-2, February 05, 1958.

   2. Definitions. To insure proper and uniform usage in UFO screenings, investigations, 
      and reportings, the objects are defined as follows: 

      a.Familiar or Known Objects - Aircraft, birds, balloons, kites, searchlights, and
        astronomical  bodies (meteors, planets, stars).

      b.Unknown Aircraft:

        (1) Flying objects determined to be aircraft. These generally appear as a result
            of ADIZ violations and often prompt the UFO reports submitted by the general 
            public. They are readily identifiable as, or known to be, aircraft, but their 
            type, purpose, origin, and destination are unknown. Air Defense Command is
            responsible for reports of "unknown" aircraft and they should not be reported 
            as UFO's under this regulation.

        (2) Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights
            observed at night, lights circling or near airports and airways, and other 
            similar phenomena resulting from, or indications of aircraft. These should not
            be reported under this regulation as they do not fall within the definition of
            a UFO.

        (3) Pilotless aircraft and missiles. 

     c. Unidentified Flying Objects - Any airborne object which, by performance, aerodynamic
        characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to known aircraft or missiles, 
        or which does not correspond to definitions in a. and b. above.

There were also other official definitions but virtually all of them were intended to screen out known manmade objects or phenomena from UFOs, leaving only extraordinary and mystifying objects for further investigation. The USAF was reluctant to simply say they were looking for alien craft, but it amounted to the same thing and there were those inside the USAF who openly advocated the ETH.

The other issue with regard to the definition is that of usage. The word UFO in the context of a UFO report refers to the object that is the subject of a UFO report, and it may not be anything extraordinary. UFOs themselves however are, and the word has always been synonymous with alien craft. Never has the word been intended to "technically" designate some distant light or object that is merely "unidentified". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.83.184 (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

USER RESPONSE: Oh, balls! Who told you that? UFO has been used many times for simply objects on radar by the military or air-traffic-controllers that - temporarily or not - are not identified. Tinfoil off, please!

HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

REBUTTAL: Excuse me but the statement, "Oh, Balls" doesn't address the fact that the official USAF definition, an independent source from the very people who created the word UFO itself differs from your seemingly biased opinion, one that downplays UFOs by making them seem as mundane as possible right from the start. Which is exactly the opposite of what the USAF reporting procedures indicate they were looking for. As for your opinion on usage, you are confusing the two main forms of usage, the first being to convey the idea of an alien craft and the second to convey the type of report or investigation. Objects reported on radar or are the subject of an investigation may or may not turn out to be UFOs ( alien craft ). There is a difference between a UFO report and a report of a UFO.

In addition to the official USAF definition already cited we also have the following quote from the person who actually created the word in the first place, Edward Ruppelt, Captain, USAF:

“I know the full story about flying saucers and I know that it has never before been told because I organized and was chief of the Air Force's Project Blue Book, the special project set up to investigate and analyze unidentified flying object, or UFO, reports. ( UFO is the official term that I created to replace the words 'flying saucers.' )"

The above clearly indicates that the word UFO is an official USAF euphemism for the phrase "flying saucer", widely believed to be craft of alien origin and usually extraterrestrial. Add to this that a Google search during Feruary 2012 for images of UFOs turned up over 80 million results, the vast majority depicting an alien craft. Add to this the following quote from the USAF on the meaning of the word "unidentified" in the context of UFO investigations:

"A sighting is considered unidentified when a report apparently contains all pertinent data necessary to suggest a valid hypothesis concerning the cause or explanation of the report but the description of the object or its motion cannot be correlated with any known object or phenomena."

What becomes increasingly evident from official documentation ( and not merely opinion ) is that as UFO investigative protocols evolved, the word UFO was not meant to convey something as simplistic as the word “unidentified” implies. UFOs aren’t some vague light or shape in the distance, but something which is observed well enough to determine that it doesn't correspond to any natural or manmade object or phenomenon known to investigators. In the case of USAF investigators, we’re talking about highly qualified people in official positions who carried Top Secret clearance. It's time to face the fact that the phrase Unidentified flying Object and its short form UFO are meant to convey the idea of an alien craft and are actually used that way today by the vast majority people who use the English language. So if we are going to manufacture definitions, as the opening definition does, then let's at least use one that is accurate:

UFO or ufo ( plural UFOs of ufos ) noun

1. A craft of alien origin.

2. The object or phenomenon that is the focus of a UFO report or investigation.

Word Origin: [ Mid-20th century (1952) acronym formed from the words unidentified flying object. ]

Synonyms: flying saucer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.83.184 (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

kids say: please edit this to make it more understandable.(no offense) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.38.73 (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 February 2012

Please Remove: ( first line ) An unidentified flying object, often abbreviated UFO or U.F.O., is an unusual apparent anomaly in the sky that is not readily identifiable to the observer as any known object.

And Replace With: The phrase "unidentified flying object" was created by the United States Air Force during the late 1940s as an official internal reference to what were then being referred to by the public as flying saucers, believed by some USAF investigators at the time to have been craft of extraterrestrial origin.

SOURCES:

1. Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, USAF ( the person who created the word UFO ). From his book: The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, 1956 Ace Books, Chapter 1:

“I know the full story about flying saucers and I know that it has never before been told because I organized and was chief of the Air Force's Project Blue Book, the special project set up to investigate and analyze unidentified flying object, or UFO, reports. ( UFO is the official term that I created to replace the words ‘flying saucers.’ )”

2. A routing and record sheet used for inter-office correspondence at Air Materiel Command dated February 13, 1948. Source NARA Archives:

"Referenced item states Kodachrome pictures were taken of an unidentified flying object by [NAME WITHELD] of Harmon Field, Newfoundland on 10 July, 1947. It is requested that the films or photographs be obtained for study."

3. Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, USAF ( the person who created the word UFO ). From his book: The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, 1956 Ace Books, Introduction:

"It is well known that ever since the first flying saucer was reported in June 1947 the Air Force has officially said that there is no proof that such a thing as an interplanetary spaceship exists. But what is not well known is that this conclusion is far from being unanimous among the military and their scientific advisers ... "

4. Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, USAF ( the person who created the word UFO ). From his book: The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, 1956 Ace Books:

"In intelligence, if you have something to say about some vital problem you write a report that is known as an 'Estimate of the Situation.' A few days after the DC-3 was buzzed, the people at ATIC decided that the time had arrived to make an Estimate of the Situation. The situation was the UFO's; the estimate was that they were interplanetary! "

5. Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, USAF ( the person who created the word UFO ). From his book: The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, 1956 Ace Books, Chapter 1:

The commanding officer of the fighter group, a full colonel and command pilot, believed that UFO's were real. The colonel believed in UFO's because he had a lot of faith in his pilots -- and they had chased UFO's in their F-86's. He had seen UFO's on the scopes of his radar sets, and he knew radar.

Further Considerations: There is no doubt that Captain Edward J. Ruppelt was head of the official USAF investigation into UFOs known as Project Blue Book. Also note that these references are not intended to prove UFOs are alien, only that as stated in the requested changes that some officials believed they were. Also, further records go on to make it very clear that UFOs were not to be considered as merely some vague shape or unusual anomaly that was not readily unidentifiable. Special efforts were made when screening UFO reports to eliminate as many known natural or manmade objects as possible all the way down to blowing bits of paper. This makes the existing opening statement very misleading and it hints at a typical bias by skeptics who willfully ignore the independent objective information above. Some of this is also covered in the Talk section, the only objection being one of offhanded dismissal rather than a response to the evidence.

70.72.83.184 (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Even in Calgary, there is not a single shred of definite hard, physical evidence for what you are assuming. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Given that this request substantially alters the first line, generally considered one of the most important parts of an article, I'd prefer to see some outside feedback before making a change like this. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Part of it has some substantiation in a reliable secondary source, [3] however I would not alter the first line of the lead, but rather add the information to the body text in an appropriate section, e.g. "The phrase "unidentified flying object" was created by the United States Air Force in 1952 to describe what were then being referred to by the public as flying saucers" - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Section "Allegations of evidence suppression"

Not only is the section heavily POV biased, it also lacks reliable sources entirely and seems to be a way for the UFO-believer crowd to garner attention. That is not what Wikipedia is for. In addition, the section is but two sentences, and could easily be incorporated under the L2 heading "Conspiracy theories" without its own L3 heading. In short, the L3 heading only draws attention to those believing in the "evidence" for unidentified flying objects being alien spacecraft. Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 20:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

Can a sysop PLEASE fix the first image caption? You know, the one that says "alleged UFO"? If you don't know what it is, it's a UFO. UNIDENTIFIED. FLYING. OBJECT. Please change it to either "a UFO spotted" or "an alleged spacecraft spotted". TrollGlaDOS (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

How about "tossed pie-pan spotted"? Alien spacecraft? Please. "Alleged UFO" is the best caption. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

So, is it identified? If not, is it flying? It is in the air, certainly, and if it flew in that place, it IS a UFO. UFO is not same as "alien spacecraft" or anything like that. At least I do not know what that is. 85.217.40.49 (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Systematic deletion of pages related to UFOlogy, UFOs, "aliens", and interdimensional beings? Misrepresentations in articles?

I've been noticing some deletions and suggestions for deletions of various pages related to UFOlogy.

And just as we find during times of sightings, we might be seeing some examples of misrepresentations, misinformation, or disinformation. I find this disturbing, and would like investigators and students of UFOlogy/Ufology to keep watch. I suggest/propose that this be an organized watch.

Examples of deletions (selected):

• List of life forms. This was just deleted a few days ago. I requested that it be undeleted. It's back—for now. It may need some work.
• Non-physical entity. Being considered for deletion. Needs more citations, and some rewriting to keep it from being a "synth". There is even a Project Page and its own Talk page, related to discussions about deletion.
• Interdimensional being. Old deletion?
• Interdimensional travel. Old deletion?
• Missing time. Deletion proposed on the Talk page. There is NO WAY this should be deleted, but it is VERY sparse, and needs several citations to be added, as well as several more examples. (Currently, there is only 1 example listed, making the article seem "anecdotal". Not good.)
• Others.

Example of misrepresentations/misinformation/disinformation (selected):

• Phoenix Lights. I tried to make factual changes several months ago to this article, but my changes were Undone. I was ticked enough to go out and partially reread – and write notes in – the famous Dr. Kitei book, and watch a video about "The Phoenix Lights", just so that I could do two main things: 1) Fix confusing and false descriptions of various time orders of sightings. (The article made it seem like there were only two types of sightings to consider.) 2) Add citations regarding the CRAFT that people thought they saw. The article read like it was mostly if not ONLY lights, in spots in the article, which is simply not true. I found several pages in the book which refer to what was seen as "craft" (and even "crafts", lol).
• Others.

Please LIST other examples in your comments just below this. Thanks.

I want to see the facts and various hypotheses kept intact!

Is there UFO Portal page? Would it be advisable?

How can people organize a watch by students and investigators of these phenomena, rather than seeing skeptics and "debunkers" pick off or diminish articles one by one? If they do so, it would typically and likely be done quietly/silently. Therefore, there MUST be a watch kept. (If I had more time, and more experience here, I might spearhead it.)

Please don't edit my comments above. Please comment below this. Thank you!

Misty MH (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Because (technically, anyway) this is an encyclopedia project, which requires that information in the articles come from Reliable Sources as defined by the Wiki project, not wishful thinking. "Craft" is a term used by UFO nuts without regard to the complete absence of any scientific evidence. If/until physical evidence is provided (which will never be), neutral strict referencing avoiding such terms should be the norm here (except as a general statement on what 'believers' utilize.) HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment here. :) Misty MH (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 October 2012

On July 2 of each year World UFO Day is held. World UFO Day is a day in which individuals and groups are encouraged to gather together to watch the skies for unidentified flying objects. Draek (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

? Is there a specific place you want it go? Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it should have a subject of it's own called: World UFO Day

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It probably would be more appropriate for the article Ufology, which is prominently linked from this article. (Incidentally, a brief glance at World UFO Day suggests it needs more sources.) Rivertorch (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The World UFO Day has been updated with sources. Thank you for your time. Draek (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Major structural edits 12 Oct 2012

Hello wikipedians. I've trying to reorganize this page into a coherent structure. This article did not flow in any logical manner, and contains extensive redundancies and contradictions of terminology. Thus far I've made three major starting changes:

1. Moved the discussion of the ET hypothesis deeper in the article where it can appear in context with other hypotheses, and removed the reference to the ETH in the intro
2. Put the Terminology section to the top, rewrote much of it, and added more detailed references.
3. Deleted the long Kenneth Arnold UFO sighting section from the Early History.

Obviously this is a contentious subject, so I'm going to see how people react before going forward with fixing up this entry. But I suggest the following areas for improvement:

1. Address the strong US-bias of this entry
2. Delete redundant sections (this article has both "Studies" and "Investigations" sections)
3. Create a "UFO Controversy" section?
4. Create a "UFO Theories" section to contain Identification of UFOs, the ET Hypothesis, Hoaxes, and Conspiracy Theories subsections.
5. Removing the descriptions from the sources. Ie, "Analysis of 640 high-quality cases through 1969 by UFO legend Hynek." or "Many classic cases and UFO history provided in great detail; highly documented."
6. Add more and better references

Clotten (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Because the article introduction has already been reverted, I think a discussion is warranted. The phrase "often associated with extraterrestrial life." should be removed. While it is true that UFOs are often associated with ET life, they are often associated with many things! The article could just as well say "often associated with conspiracy theories" or "often associated with photographic evidence" or "often investigated by local military or intelligence agencies" or "often associated with psychological conditions" or even "often associated with science fiction". These are all true statements. But Why should we pick any one of the things that UFOs are often associated with and include it at the beinning of the article?

Can someone provide a good source or argument to support this idea that UFOs should be associated with the ETH? Because if the consensus is that I'm wrong, surely we should find a source to support the claim. Clotten (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

u.f.o.'s

there used to be a favorite website i could go to to be able to study psychic phenomena or parapsychology i could ask it anything like can i make something move with my mind telekinesis will what i think really happen to this person happen before it happens and it does e.s.p. but the most interesting thing i ever asked it was whether i was capable of sending an unidentified flying object down from space to prove to me that they exist and at 4 a.m.i heard a loud rotating disk outside my bedroom window and then fly off! does this sound immposible? it isn't. it's just really interesting a lot of fun and kinda scarry too. i don't know what i'm messing with but someday if time permits i might be able to test my psychic abilities to the max and do somemore. does anybody have any comments? don139.173.54.11 (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the article. Wikipedia has strict rules about original research. Content has to be reliably sourced to an independent source. We can't really discuss your own experiences here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 May 2013

In the UK, it is the Ministry of Defence (with a C, not an S) Jfkthe2nd (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 20:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Uruguay?

This section features a showcased quote by Colonel Ariel Sanchez who is an activist in Steven M. Greer's fringe "disclosure project". One problem is that it's sourced to a single Latin American news outlet. Another is that Uruguay is only one among numerous countries that have recently released their old UFO report files into the public domain [4]. UFOlogists may interpret this stuff as significant, however, I'd like to see multiple reliable sources discussing it before we give Uruguay and Sanchez's quote such weight in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Decline

I added a section on the decline of UFO sightings in recent years; I dunno how much more there is to say about it, but it could possibly be fleshed out. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yet we have this (taken from the ASSAP article): [Pope, Nick (24 February 2013). "2012 - a bumper year for UFOs; Nick Pope used to run the MoD's UFO Project and is now recognised as one of the world's leading FOUR unidentified flying objects were spotted hovering over Sydney's suburbs on the afternoon of May 18, 2012. experts on A photograph captured the four UFOs - which witnesses said hovered in the same spot for more than 10 minutes before disappearing again - from Tom Ugly's Bridge Marina in the city just before 5pm. UFO's and the unexplained. The photographer, local resident Ivan Mikkelsen, told The Daily Telegraph in Australia that he first noticed the objects". The People. pp. 2–3.] Kortoso (talk)

This is Lie

It has been proved that this was a rubbish from USA Air Force. Just because they fears that some is attacking them this phobia is in their lives and they see such type of thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.55.216.221 (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

toroid : mechanism of UFO(Korean) 'inertial force controller'

http://eviltocancer.blogspot.kr/2013/11/toroid-mechanism-of-ufokorean-inertial.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.35.144.226 (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2014

Please change 'when a man wrote the government' to 'when a man wrote to the government' because the event that the article refers to happened in the UK and it would not be grammatically correct in the current form for UK users.

Niccity (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. LittleMountain5 18:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

I am very new to Wikipedia and I am not sure how this works so please be patient with me. I have noticed that just about every section of this "UFO" page contains glaring factual, scientific and historical errors. I am not sure what I can do about it becuase there are simply so many factual errors that it beggars belief.

The definition of UFO:

An unidentified flying object, or UFO, in its most general definition, is any apparent anomaly in the sky (or near or on the ground, but observed hovering, landing, or departing into the sky) that is not readily identifiable as any known object or phenomenon by visual observation and/or use of associated instrumentation such as radar.

...is not right at all (it is factually incorrect and highly misleading...)That is:

1. First, Wikipedia’s phraseology “in its most general definition” is not only grammatically incorrect, it misleadingly suggests there is more than one definition for UFO. It also begs the question: What is a concise definition of UFO and why has such a definition not been presented? The reality is of course that concise definitions do exist and a single concise definition of UFO is sufficient for most purposes (and the example that follows is as good as any). That is:

An Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) may be defined as an aerial phenomenon for which no orthodox scientific or mundane explanation can be found.

2. Second, it is demonstrably false to assert that a UFO is “any apparent anomaly in the sky”. There are many anomalies in the sky that are not classified as UFOs. For example certain types of light phenomena, electrical discharge phenomena, various illusions, temperature inversion effects, mirages, strange cloud formations, even the moon illusion, and so on. All these types of phenomena may be considered “anomalous” (irregular or abnormal), but not classed as UFOs. Clearly then a UFO simply cannot be “any apparent anomaly in the sky”. Nor can a UFO be “an apparent anomaly”. The term “apparently anomalous” is entirely subjective because it depends on the observer to define it. Just as a car should remain a car no matter who observes it, similarly a UFO should remain a UFO no matter who observes it. Moreover, UFOs comprise just one class of aerial phenomenon (i.e. the class of unknown aerial phenomenon – or aerial phenomenon for which we have no orthodox scientific, or otherwise mundane, explanation – notice the definitions here…) among two other classes (i.e. known aerial phenomenon – we know of the orthodox scientific or mundane explanation – another definition - and aerial phenomenon where there is insufficient information to determine whether we may class the phenomena as known or unknown – the insufficient information classification). It is therefore false to assert that UFOs comprise “any apparent anomaly in the sky”. UFOs are literally (and simply) an “aerial phenomenon” which may be classified according to the above rules (Known, Unknown and Insufficient Information). To say anything more or less is misleading.

3. Nor is the next term in Wikipedia’s definition - “or near or on the ground” - definitive of UFOs (or one would also be required to include “or in, on, or above bodies of water, in earth, moon or planetary orbit, coming or going from the earth’s atmosphere, landed on or near the surface of the moon or other planets…” & so on) Such characterisations may apply to some UFOs, but certainly not necessarily, and certainly not all, therefore such characterisations cannot be definitive of UFOs. For example, one does not include the observational characteristic “parked by the roadside” in a definition of cars because it does not apply to all cars and is therefore not definitive of cars (despite many cars, if not all at one time or other being observed in such a state), likewise “near or on the ground” should be rejected as definitive of UFOs. Perhaps in later descriptive or characterising paragraphs one might clarify such distinctions (e.g. that some cars may be found parked by the roadside, just as some UFOs may be found on or near the ground) but such statements do not belong in a definition of a class of objects.

4. Likewise the term “observed hovering”. Again (for example) one simply cannot include the particular brand characteristic of one type of car “observed to have an automatic reverse parking facility” in a definition of cars because it is simply not definitive of cars. Similarly “observed hovering” does not belong in a definition of UFOs because it is not definitive of UFOs. Otherwise people might legitimately argue for the inclusion of characteristics such as “observed undertaking right angle turns at speed” or “disappearing into thin air” or “shooting beams of light” and so on. Needless to say it would make a mockery of any definition to allow any such characterisations (including “observed hovering”) to form part of the definition- where does one stop?

5. Of course the term “landing, or departing into the sky” suffers similarly. In fact none of the above terminology (points 3, 4 & 5 here) are definitive of UFOs. The inclusion of such characteristics can only serve to inappropriately bias a reader’s concept of what UFOs are (or might possibly be). Sure we can describe particular or common UFO characteristics (e.g. X% observed hovering, Y% observed doing right angled turns, Z% exhibit no discernable noise, etc.), but such characterisations simply do not belong in a definition of UFOs. A definition is required to be definitive of a class of objects (or phenomena) as a whole, not to include selective characteristics that may or may not apply to (perhaps) a minority of that class, if any at all.

6. Next we encounter the phrase “…not readily identifiable as any known object or phenomenon…” But what does that actually mean? By whose criteria is it (the potential UFO) “not readily identifiable”? The term “not readily identifiable” is entirely subjective. It is erroneous to define an external object or phenomenon by who is doing the observing: What is “not readily identifiable” to you might be instantly recognisable to me. Similarly the term “any known object” is subjective (known to whom - Scientists? English teachers? Mandarin speakers? My dog?). Such subjective statements simply do not belong in any definition. Quite simply a UFO qualifies as a UFO because it cannot be identified as anything mundane by anyone at any time. That is what defines a UFO as a UFO. Moreover, Wikipedia’s “not readily identifiable as any known object or phenomenon…” would allow a UFO to remain a UFO even after a difficult, complex scientific analysis proved it to be something mundane (it was really difficult to identify, but we did it, yet it remains not readily identifiable (go on, try it!), so by definition it remains a UFO?). Any definition that allows a UFO to be proved not to be a UFO and yet remain a UFO by definition (even as an unintended consequence) is a nonsense definition.

7. Next we encounter the final illegitimate attempt to define UFOs, this time by the method of observation. No other ostensibly objective phenomenon is defined either by who observes it (see previous point) or by its method of observation. The observer and the method of observation are essentially irrelevant to any definition of any objective phenomenon (including in quantum physics). Yet Wikipedia’s definition holds that something is a UFO if it cannot be (“readily” – whatever that means – another weasel word) identified by “visual observation and/or use of associated instrumentation such as radar”. That is obviously nonsense. There are many things that cannot be identified visually or by radar… Does a snowflake become a UFO at night? Does a raindrop? A cloud? Do we define an atom of oxygen as a UFO merely because it is something that cannot be identified “as any known object or phenomenon by visual observation and/or use of associated instrumentation such as radar”? Of course we don’t. The phrase is obviously not definitive of UFOs - and so it should not be included in a definition of UFOs. Moreover, how does radar distinguish between a UFO and an ordinary airplane if travelling at the same speed? Then there is also the small inconvenience of the existence of other detecting and identifying mechanisms; FLIR cameras for example (do they turn into UFOs in the dark?), Geiger counters, EMF meters, radio-telescopes, hearing, smell, touch, perhaps even extrasensory perception or telepathy… Do we list all these (and more as we think of, or invent, them) in the definition too? No, it would not make sense to do so. A UFO is something that cannot be verifiably identified as something mundane by any methodology - as applied by anyone at any time. If just one observational methodology verifiably identified (by conforming to the scientific method) a potential UFO as something mundane – then mundane it is - and not a UFO! Moreover:

Even current (Jan 2014) dictionary definitions of UFO can also be misleading. For example the Oxford Dictionaries Online defines UFO as “…a mysterious object seen in the sky for which it is claimed no orthodox scientific explanation can be found, often supposed to be a vehicle carrying extraterrestrials.” Unfortunately this does not constitute a true definition of UFO. First, the term “it is claimed” is misleading because it is the simple fact that a UFO is a phenomenon for which “no orthodox scientific explanations can be found” – that defines UFOs. Second, (and for example) the fact that tomatoes are “often supposed to be” vegetables, correctly defines neither tomatoes nor vegetables. In fact tomatoes are classed as fruit. Similarly “…often supposed to be a vehicle carrying extraterrestrials …” has no place in a formal definition of UFOs because it is not definitive of UFOs and has a definite probability of being false (one might state that UFOs have become popularly synonymous with extraterrestrial spacecraft in a separate characterisation, but not in a definition – UFOs are “often supposed to be entirely mundane phenomena”, but that is not in the definition for the same reasons). Another reason such characterisations simply cannot be included in definitions because they may be entirely contradictory! The Cambridge Dictionary Online defines UFO as “…an object seen in the sky that is thought to be a spacecraft from another planet.” Here Cambridge’s definition constitutes a demonstrably false statement, and that is simply because a significant proportion of the population do not think UFOs are “spacecraft from another planet”.

No….

An Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) may be defined as an aerial phenomenon for which no orthodox scientific or mundane explanation can be found.

Then...

The term UFO was NOT created in 1953 by the USAF to "replace" other terms (nor BTW was it coined by Ruppelt!)

The first official use of the term “Unidentified Flying Object” can be found in a US Air Training Corp (ATC) “Extract From Weekly Intelligence Summary” document dated 16 July 1947: “The following is a digest of the only current reports that have been received through the Intelligence system of this Command concerning unidentified flying objects” (Retrieved from http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?pagecode=NARA-PBB2-37&tab=2, 7 Jan 2014). The term was in regular use from that date.

The first recorded use of “UFO” (as a noun in its own right) appears on the 03 November 1952 in a “Facts and Discussion” report titled “Trip to Los Alamos on 23 October 1952”. It states “On 23rd October 1952, Col D. L. Bower and Capt E. J. Ruppelt of ATIC presented a briefing at the Los Alomos Scientific Laboratory. After the briefing Col Bower and Capt Ruppelt met with seven people from the lab who were interested in the subject of UFO’s” (Retrieved from http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB7-936, 8 Jan 2014).

There are a number of other circumstantial clues to show Ruppelt did not coin the term UFO. One of them is a letter dated 03 November 1952 - precisely the same date as the briefing minutes cited above (and surely no coincidence) – in which Ruppelt wrote to a Mr Gittings of Los Alamos stating “When Col Bower and I were in Los Alomos giving the briefing on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, we discussed the correlation between sightings of UAP and the detection of certain types of radiation.” (Retrieved from http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB7-934, 08 Jan 2014). Ruppelt’s use of the terms “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena” and “UAP” demonstrates he was using alternate terminology in both the briefing he attended and also on the very day someone else was using the term “UFO”. That someone else was probably a junior in his office who wrote up the "minutes" of the breifing. Ruppelt however would have seen that use of the term UFO and perhaps later thought to make it his own… and there is a particular delicious irony in that, but that is for a later discussion…

Now, there are MANY other factual errors in just about every statement and line on this Wikipedia page. Someone has been allowed to write this page without doing the least bit of basic research. The factual, historical and scientific errors must be corrected. However there are so MANY of them that it would be quicker and easier to completely rewrite the page from scratch rather than try and fix it all as it stands (and the current structure is not very good either)

Of course I have written all the FACTS out and in doing so it looks like I have a good portion of the whole thing rewritten anyway...

would anyone like to see it?

So I have a question - how shall we proceed from here to remove all the errors and instate the facts of the matter?

As I say, I am very new to Wikipedia, so I will be guided by your preferences.

Thank you. Will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theatozofeverything (talk • contribs) 02:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)