Talk:Unidentified flying object/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

How long is appropriate to wait for a reply to a post on this talk page?

Being new to Wikipedia I am not sure about the etiquette of waiting for a reply. Can someone advise me please? --Theatozofeverything (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I suspect Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read is in play here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
You'd get more feedback if you propose changes like this, a section at a time: I suggest "x" be rewritten as "y" (provide appropriate sources) because [short rationale]. --NeilN talk to me 22:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

But the whole point is that the page is a total mess. Just about every statement on the page is factually, historically or scientificaslly in error. I was merely providing some examples of why it is in error - to show my "credentials" - my capability - (and believe me I could go on...). Unfortunately the old addage that it is very easy to state an erroneous throwaway line (as this page is composed), but takes volumes to show why it is in error applies here. Witness the justificastion for rejecting the current definition in favour of a more concise definition. Even with all that justification I suspect people will be reluctant to change - and there would be absolutely no hope of correcting the definition if all that justification was NOT included. The WHOLE PAGE is so far in error that it is practically impossible to salvage. That means (ideally) the page needs to be completely restructured and rewritten. Given that one cannot directly edit this page, there must be an "owner" or "moderator" who approves or disallows changes. It is THAT person to whom I should be speaking. Can anyone put me in touch with that person so we can begin a proper dialogue to begin sort out this mess of a page? --Theatozofeverything (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand how Wikipedia works. There is no owner of the article. The reason why you can't edit it is because it is semi-protected and you are not autoconfirmed quite yet. When you are, I strongly advise you to still solicit feedback on this page before making wholesale changes. --NeilN talk to me 01:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback Neil, I appreciate it. I certainly have no problem in seeking feedback on proposed changes - but I do hope that there is someone watching this page who is actually interested in UFOs and is not merely a sceptic feigning interest in order to maintain confusion about the topic (by disallowing clarifying changes). This page is so far in error that I begin to suspect that situation might be the case. A rhetorical question: Would control over an evolutionary biology article be given over to creationists? I mean how does this thing actuially work? Is editing a page merely a matter of who can "shout the loudest" - or muster the support of enough "contributors" that any meaningfully accurate contribution is simply drowned out in the noise of the skeptics and debunkers (as seems to have happened to this page)?

Question: How do I succinctly demonstrate that the page requires a complete restructure without invoking a Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read reaction. I mean if other page contributors were TRULY interested in (and knowledgeable about) the topic of UFOs, surely they would have read my original post in detail and commented on it already...?--Theatozofeverything (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

A couple of things. It hasn't been all that long yet to elicit comment. I'd give it three or four days at least. Neil's comment about you becoming autoconfirmed is also relevant. Once that happens you can edit the article yourself. Several of your changes could be done fairly simply, so long as you're sure they're supported by reliable sources. HiLo48 (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Re: evolutionary biology - no, but creationists wouldn't be given control over creationism articles either. If you haven't read WP:FRINGE, it might be worth your while to see how Wikipedia handles such subjects. Not saying you are pushing for introducing fringe material, but if the scientific community is skeptical about UFOs, that skepticism will be reflected in the article. --NeilN talk to me 03:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, comment has been elicited (thank you), but not on the topic itself ... but sure, I take your own (and Neil's) point about giving it time and once I am autoconfirmed I could then change things (and I am a qualified scientist and published academic author so I certainly know a thing or two about supporting contributions with evidence)- but what I am proposing is a wholesale restructure and given that is a radical proposal and humans are naturally (but extraordinarily) resistent to change, I was hoping to engage someone on that subject before proceeding. Perhaps I could create a new post that lists the section headings of my proposed restructure - and see if anyone cares to comment? (and then of course people would ask why I wanted to restructure and then I would refer them back to my first post and ask if anyone wanted further evidence ...and we would be back to square one... (Ha! Cynical? Me? LOL)--Theatozofeverything (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The constructive approach of proposing a set of new section headings appeals to me. Do it briefly, referring editors to your earlier post for details of why, if they're interested. (I'd still wait a bit longer though.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you HiLo48. I'll make sure my ducks are in a row (so to speak) and perhaps also until I can get some editorial control, and then embark on what I am sure will prove to be an extremely interesting and informative journey for all involved.--Theatozofeverything (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You should be able to edit the article now. --NeilN talk to me 05:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2014

Under Uruguay, it should be "without explanation", not "lacking conventional explanation". These are the words as accurately translated. Or remove the " ". If we use " " then the exact translation needs to be used, not a creative equivalent. Anything else is dishonest. Thank you.

124.148.140.238 (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I've change the text to as lacking explanation and removed the quotes. --NeilN talk to me 14:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

UFO : ufo Light in my city , did you see that

[: ufo Light in my city , did you see that] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raednajjar (talk • contribs) 16:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. --NeilN talk to me 16:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

UFO

Hello, I may just be a kid but I may know a thing about where UFO's live. I learned that the most UFO sightings are when Venus is near earth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.148.221 (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2014

Gabo2012 (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Add pics File:UFO landing strip in Cachi, Argentina.jpg

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 10:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

UFOs in outer space

There is an article up for deletion called UFO sightings in outer space. Is anyone interested in working on it to improve it? Bali88 (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Size or shape of a saucer?

In the Early History section, the report from the Denison Daily News says the objects were about the size of a saucer? Is that a typo? Should it be "shape of a saucer"?--Jrm2007 (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

semi-protected edit request 22 nov

"Such anomalies may later be identified, but depending on the evidence or lack of evidence, such an identification may not be possible generally leaving the anomaly unexplained."

This is a run-on sentance should have a comma after "possible"

Done XFEM Skier (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit Suggestion

The sub-section on Project Blue Book is, IMO, deficient. It doesn't say what the project was, rather it only talks about a couple dissenting views of it. I suggest adding to the sub-section an initial paragraph that says what the project was (and possibly omitting the two existing paras about dissenters, since IMO that level of detail belongs instead in the linked-to Wikipedia article on Project Blue Book itself). The existing first couple paras in the Project Blue Book article would do as a reasonable starting point for this sub-section. I of course can't make the edit, since this article seems to be locked. 71.191.156.149 (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Scientific community

The section "studies" has this text: "There was, in the past, some debate in the scientific community about whether any scientific investigation into UFO sightings is warranted with the general conclusion being that the phenomena was not worthy of serious investigation beyond a cultural artifact." This not factually accurate, in fact the very sources that are linked at the end of that sentence prove that sentence incorrect. The COMETA report is a recent serious French study of the issue, and while the vast majority of the Scientific community does not publish ufology, there is still plenty of debate about the issue, as shown by various links after that very sentence. I therefore changed it to a more balanced sentence reading "There continues to be some debate in the scientific community about whether any scientific investigation into UFO sightings is warranted, though most scientists shy away from the subject.".

The "COMETA Report" (unsolicited by the French government) was generated by a private nonprofit group in France that offered its musings on the defense implications of UFO reports. There is no "debate" within the scientific community as regards UFOs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2015

Here's the current text in the Famous Hoaxes section

"Ed Walters, a building contractor, in 1987 allegedly perpetrated a hoax in Gulf Breeze, Florida. Walters claimed at first having seen a small UFO flying near his home and took some photographs of the craft. Walters reported and documented a series of UFO sightings over a period of three weeks and took several photographs. These sightings became famous and were called Gulf Breeze UFO incident. Three years later, in 1990, after the Walters family had moved, the new residents discovered a model of a UFO poorly hidden in the attic that bore an undeniable resemblance to the craft in Walters' photographs. Most investigators like the forensic photo expert William G. Hyzer[122] now consider the sightings to be a hoax."

I would like to eliminate this paragraph as it is simply incorrect. Many other residents of Gulf Breeze also saw and photographed the UFO's during this period, not just Mr. Walters. Most experts now consider this sighting quite valid.

Tnx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teedlebomb (talk • contribs) 14:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Reliable independent sources contained in Gulf Breeze UFO incident conclude it was a hoax. Do you have new sources that contradict these? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
What and who are these reliable independant sources that concluded something in this ufo case ? Are we talking eye witnesses and experts' with various qualifications in aeronautics/photography/spotting/etc ? I ask because this looks remarkably like a one way street..never have independent sources in favor of a ufo case been named as reliable, yet at the snap of the fingers we get a whole bunch of certified, approved, reliable independent sources stating it's a hoax.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2015

Concerning the link to the COMETA report in the section "France", when clicking on it one is led to the page "Ufology", not to the COMETA report. I wish to correct this serious mistake / misleading link so one can find the actual COMETA report itself (in its entirety) in the article. One can find the report in English here: https://archive.org/details/TheCometaReport GwendOl*ne (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the text regarding COMETA at Ufology#COMETA Report (France, 1999), which includes links to the report and some background on the organization. clpo13(talk) 04:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

What is efting?

"After regaining consciousness he reported having seen an elongated vehicle and that some strangely shaped beings descended from it touching and efting him. Both the young hikers soffered of conjunctivitis for some time."

What is this supposed to be? I can't read the Italian, so I can't make it out from that. MonoTrouble (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  • There is no such word. Obviously a bad edit cut the word short. I eliminated the word, and reworded the sentence to work without it. That will have to do until the original editor can return and add what was intended. Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    •    So, is there a general consensus that efting does not mean "touching him with an eft, rather than directly"?
      --Jerzy•t 01:42 17 July, & [reformatting] 18:29, 18 July, 2016 (UTC)
   ...blinding white light above the trees. One of the two approaches, out of sight of his companion, while the light rises in the sky; the friend then begins to look for it and crosses other hikers. All scatter fan to try first. They find it collapsed, shivering, unable to tolerate light and in a state of shock, with irregular heartbeat. The boy is in a trance and wakes up only after many attempts. After the experience, the two witnesses will suffer from conjunctivitis. The kidnapped has a scar on his leg and remembers being approached the UFO, which had pear-shaped, and at that moment had become larger. 3-4 men had appeared with his head "melon" which loomed darkly in the light. The man felt paralyzed and was able to warn only light and sound, feeling also touched and relieved.
   The March 8, 1996 a luminous object was observed for over a quarter of an hour by two hikers as they descended from the mountain Musiné. According to the story of the two witnesses, the object was shaped like a cylinder from yellow-green hues with rounded ends and seemed to sustain themselves, swaying slightly, on a white-yellow light pillow. At object edges there were two large clear-glass through which could be seen moving Moulds apparently humanoid.
   I record that on this talk page, not as usable information on the topic, but as motivation for someone to find a credible translation of the Italian source, or, after some decent interval, simply bite the bullet by junking that source as a non-'pedia-worthy one. (Clearly, that translation is worthless, unless there is evidence that it is competent and faithful, in which case its worth would be merely as evidence that the Italian source is worthless to sane humans.)
--Jerzy•t 13:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Astronaut text

In reply to Isambard Kingdom, yes I think you're correct that not very much detail has been given so far in the text concerning the experience of individuals and am happy to leave it there. But also, my text was altered by another editor to read that as a boy Dr Mitchell knew of senior government officials who had been involved in UFO sightings etc - when this was definitely not the case. I've corrected this particular error. Arnold0508 (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I shortened the sentence and tried a bit of repair. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2016

UFO & Islam: As per Islamic Point of view the earth was inhabited long before the arrival of Hazrat Adam and Bibi Havva, in unclear words the earth was ruled by some sort of species, An angel asked Allah " the earth is already populated with violence yet you are sending another species(humans)", and when Humans were sent to earth the older species or forms were told to disappear and leave earth, that could lead them to habitat in other worlds and work on different technologies hence they are around the earth but not inside the earth any more, that could mean the encounters we have with them are true/justified thru Islamic point of view.

Mfkcme (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2016

Rick Harrison Drives UFOS

208.108.138.14 (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2016

Anonymous1823 (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC) One time my sister saw a ufo.

WP:NOTFORUM. --NeilN talk to me 12:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2017 to Studies: Text Amendment Suggested

I recommend that the following text be amended. The quoted range of 5 to 20 percent of reports being unexplained is considered significantly higher than published data: 'Between 5% and 20% of reported sightings are not explained, and therefore can be classified as unidentified in the strictest sense.' Suggested replacement text: 'Confirmed unidentified sightings are relatively rare, James E McDonald concluded [1] that about 0.5 to 2 percent of raw UFO reports could not be identified as being caused by conventional objects and phenomena.'

Thank you for your consideration.

References

  1. ^ 129. Druffel, A. (2006). Firestorm: Dr James E. McDonald’s Fight for UFO Science. 2nd ed. Columbus, USA: Granite Publishing, p.13.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AntC55 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC) AntC55 (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Going Forward

With the availability of 'consumer' drones, (1), reported sightings of UFOs will most assuredly sky-rocket, and (2), sightings will routinely be attributed to 'consumer' drones. How's that for irony! 66.81.105.18 (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Why aren't we seeing more UFOs?

In this new "video" era with countless millions of mobile phone cameras, security cameras, dashboard cameras, drone cameras, etc, we would surely expect many of those cameras to be capturing footage of UFOs. Should it be mentioned in the article that UFO sightings have not kept pace with the thousand-fold increased in the prevalence of cameras worldwide?

On another unrelated topic, the images of UFOs (or of anything else) in this article seem to be about as rare as real-world UFO sightings. Only five images in a page of almost 13,000 words – that's got to be a world record, and one that makes this very long article appear exceedingly dull. Come on, folks – an image here and there would help a lot. Ian Fieggen (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

It has been noted that the number of plausible-looking pictures of UFOs has declined with the spread of mobile phone cameras. It's almost as if the only pictures tat look like alien spacecraft are the blurry ones, and good quality pictures show them to be something entirely mundane. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Haha – that makes sense: Better cameras = fewer instances of "what the heck is that?". Also, it was easier to stage a UFO sighting decades ago when you were more likely to be the only one in the vicinity with a camera. Ian Fieggen (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add a hatnote for Unidentified flying object (disambiguation)

For other uses, see Unidentified flying object (disambiguation).

{{other uses}}

-- 70.52.11.217 (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Done Gulumeemee (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Unidentified flying object. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Added Picture

I've added a picture from the F/A-18 footage of a UFO in 2015. I hope that I've added it correctly. I think the video would be more powerful and interesting but I didn't want to take the liberty to add it. Parzival1919 (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for New Section

Lately, there has been a lot of press in the mainstream news about the UFO phenomena particularly in relation to a series of recently declassified videos released in articles in major news networks. This work has been pushed by the company To the Stars Academy of Arts and Sciences and by their ex-government employees such as Christopher Mellon and Lue Elizondo. I think that, given the recent uptick in attention granted to this phenomena by the mainstream media (warranted or not), it should be mentioned.

Examples: NYT Story and Video Washington Post Story and Video and also the company itself: TTSA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huntermellon (talk • contribs) 16:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Not actually declassified and not that recent either. Where to start on this - how about here https://www.wired.com/story/what-is-up-with-those-pentagon-ufo-videos/ Skeptic2 (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

There’s the Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program article, which is mentioned in this article. But I’m open to the idea. Jusdafax (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The wired article misses the points quite a bit. The Advanced Avaition Threat Identification Program is important, but simply the fact that this issue has gained so much traction within the mainstream media (to an unprecedented level, I would argue) is important to this topic in it's own right. This is the first time in HISTORY that former government employees have come out with data and announced that this issue is signifigant and alluded heavily to the extraterrestrial hypothesis. 73.214.231.193 (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The more we learn the dodgier this all looks: http://badufos.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/to-stars-releases-another-video-and.html Skeptic2 (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
And here: https://www.cnet.com/news/ufo-navy-airplane-video-skeptics-weigh-in-to-the-stars/ Skeptic2 (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

If two of the videos are from the same jet, then that would be even more interesting. You have to understand that this company is making an effort to release these videos for public consumption. They didn't say (and probably didn't realize) some of these details, but the point is that they're making the videos and as much data as they can for the public. But, as this shouldn't be a forum for our own personal beliefs, what is really significant is the attention MSM has given to this phenomena. Warranted or not, it very much relates to this article. Parzival1919 (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

This section of the article already contains a link to the Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program article, and a related image has been included in this article as well. We can't add a new section showcasing the latest bits of media interest that the UFO topic has gotten and interpreting them as representing an unprecedented and significant amount of attention and advocacy for belief in ET — because we don't have reliable sources that implicitly do that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I understand that, although my last point is simply that there are other events and details being mentioned that seem less important than this, such as discussing how "The investigation of UFOs has also attracted many civilians" and so forth. But I get what your saying. Parzival1919 (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Redirects

I've blanked and redirected Declassification of UFO documents to this page, along with Worldwide ufo declassification and Worldwide UFO declassification which were redirects to that page. –dlthewave ☎ 15:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Terminology

There's a bit in this section that seems like it doesn't belong. "UFOs garnered considerable interest during the Cold War, an era associated with a heightened concern for national security, and, more recently, in the 2010s, for unexplained reasons.[1][2] Nevertheless, various studies have concluded that the phenomenon does not represent a threat to national security, nor does it contain anything worthy of scientific pursuit (e.g., 1951 Flying Saucer Working Party, 1953 CIA Robertson Panel, USAF Project Blue Book, Condon Committee)." Maybe this should be moved elsewhere? It doesn't relate to the terminology. 100.36.140.245 (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Paul R. Hill's book Unconventional flying objects

It's a book which provides a math and science based analysis of various UFO cases. Hill was a leading Nasa scientist in the 40s to 70s..his book is sucky and poopy- Template:Unsigned IP -->— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.68.86 (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2016‎ (UTC) 

42.111.23.126 (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 15:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Poor image

Thought I should give my reasons for deleting the 2nd image in the lead here. Parzival1919 has twice now added File:UFO Image, 2.png, implying at Commons that he was involved in taking or creating the footage -- but provided a link to different footage as a reference. So, perhaps he did create the image, in which case it's not a picture of a UFO. Also, in the footage he did link to, the pilot identifies the object (as one of a fleet of drones), meaning that according to that source it's an IFO.

Think I found the actual footage. But it sounds like just a couple guys playing with the tracking system and having fun. I don't know how that's Parzival1919's own work, but hardly notable regardless. — kwami (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't doubt that I made a mistake in how I managed the photo upload, and for that I apologize and will not re-upload it. But for the sake of clarification and for the improvement of this article, that photo and video are extremely important and relevant. The object in question, if you do a little research, is one of the best examples of a UFO video (or still image if you take an image) that there is: the Navy pilots speculate that it may be a drone but don't know what it is. The incident in question caused a bit of a stir in the Navy and there was a frontpage New York Times story about it: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html I suggest that somebody who better understands the photo upload process take a look and try to upload one of these photos, which, from the camera of an F-18, is far more credible than the current picture which, at least to me, comes of as a clear fake/hoax picture. Parzival1919 (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Elimination of section about "Claims of increase in reports"

There was an increase in the number of reports received by a certain UFO group or other in a certain year. So what? Trying to make something out of this is just poor data analysis it's cherry picking, it doesn't mean anything and doesn't warrant being included in this article. In the one case I could find follow-up information, it was a bump that soon regressed back to the mean the following year, so there's no "increase" to be spoken of. I already removed this part, but upon further inspection, the whole section has no business being there.

I'm taking the section down as having it up gives UNDUE weight to meaningless claims.

Another thing that's bothering me is that, peppered throughout the article there are these small "this apparently serious and credible person says he is a believer", which IMO is pushing the boundaries of WP:NPOV. These are WP:FRINGE views, and the article should be more reflective of that. I don't think adding other small claims of "serious and credible persons" who have more mainstream views to try and balance things out would make a reasonable solution, it would just become a messy, argumentative article. I say trim the believer POV. VdSV9•♫ 12:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect information

This article states in the "Scientific studies" section. "No official government investigation has ever publicly concluded that UFOs are indisputably real, physical objects, extraterrestrial in origin, or of concern to national defense". It then goes on to cite "project condign" as a study which is consistent with those claims. But that is false, "project condign",a UFO study undertaken by the British Government's Defence Intelligence Staff, clearly states that UFOs(Unidentified flying objects) had an observable presence that was “indisputable”. This section needs to be changed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Condign https://web.archive.org/web/20110906134848/http://www.mod.uk:80/defenceinternet/freedomofinformation/publicationscheme/searchpublicationscheme/unidentifiedaerialphenomenauapintheukairdefenceregion.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.29.234.4 (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, I have just read futher claims that project condign claims "The report noted: "No artefacts of unknown or unexplained origin have been reported or handed to the UK authorities, despite thousands of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena reports." However, project condign DOES at least also state that "Occasionally and perhaps exceptionally, it seems that a field with, as yet, undetermined characteristics, can exist between certain charged buoyant objects in loose formation, such that, depending on the viewing aspect, the intervening space between them forms an area (viewed as a shape, often triangular) from which the reflection of light does not occur. This is a key finding in the attribution of what have frequently been reported as black 'craft,' often triangular and even up to hundreds of feet in length." These plasma formations also have the effect through "magnetic, electric or electromagnetic (or even unknown field), appears to emanate from some of the buoyant charged masses" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.29.234.4 (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Still further, project condign states "The conditions for the initial formation and sustaining of what are apparently bouyant charged masses, which can form, separate, merge, hover, climb, dive and accelerate are not completely understood." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.29.234.4 (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

See Project_Condign, which doesn't state that UFOs of extraterrestrial origin exist. "Charged buoyant objects in loose formation" refers to conventional aircraft, between which atmospheric gaseous electrically charged buoyant plasmas are speculated to be mistaken for triangular UFOs. In any case, we don't cite selective fragments from WP:PRIMARY sources, we instead rely on secondary, 3rd party analysis of those sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The IP editor seems to think that things that don't contradict each other do. Nothing needs to be changed. VdSV9•♫ 11:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Amendment Recommended in Studies Section

Recommend that the following text be amended in the Studies section, 'Fewer than 10% of reported sightings remain unexplained after proper investigation, and therefore can be classified as unidentified in the strictest sense.'

Recommended replacement text: 'Confirmed unidentified sightings are relatively rare, James E McDonald concluded[135] that about 0.5 to 2 percent of raw UFO reports could not be identified as being caused by conventional objects and phenomena.'

Reference 135. Druffel, A. (2006). Firestorm: Dr James E. McDonald’s Fight for UFO Science. 2nd ed. Columbus, USA: Granite Publishing, p.13.

Thank you for your consideration. AntC55 (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect text under image

The image beside the "Italy" part has Frank Drake on the right, not the person claimed. The information about the image itself is correct that it is Frank Drake on the right but that is not what it says under the image on this page. Apparently I can't edit that so someone else will have to. Cheers!

85.230.90.224 (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

New Picture Request

Should the first picture on this article be changed to a screenshot of one of those videos released by the Pentagon recently? HuyyBoii 05 (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Livy

I don't understand this: "Julius Obsequens was a Roman writer who is believed to have lived in the middle of the fourth century AD. The only work associated with his name is the Liber de prodigiis (Book of Prodigies), completely extracted from an epitome, or abridgment, written by Livy; " Livy lived, like, centuries before the fourth century.Kdammers (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. And Julius Obsequens used an abridgement (epitome) written by Livy as his source. And, indeed, that abridgement was centuries old when Julius Obsequens used it as a source. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead

I understand that this is a very wide topic, but shouldn't the lead still be a little longer and more in depth? It's currently just three short phrases. For pages of over 30,000 characters (this article has 124,184), MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests three or four paragraphs. Notably, the lead and sidebar suggest that the article primarily covers ufology/aliens and the refutation thereof, which isn't really the case. Much of the article discusses real unidentified (at the time) objects and genuine (non-paranormal) interest by primarily governments and armed forces into these phenomena. Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  • After looking over the lead, aka "lede," I am in agreement. I will begin to expand it per the article, not adding refs since the material is sourced in the body of the article, per Wikipedia standard practices, with a goal of three or four paragraphs. Jusdafax (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 Done. I have striven to find a neutral and encyclopedic way forward. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

UAP should be broken off

There is a major difference between UAP and UFO, even though they are commonly interchangeably used. A UFO could be an object such as a magnetic anomaly or a meteor. A UAP, on the other hand, is an Advanced Aerial Vehicle which uses next generation propulsion technology. A UFO is completely Unidentified and the subject matter is very broad. A UAP is at least partially identified as a type of vehicle which displays anomalous capabilities such as Inertial Mass Reduction and Metric Engineering capabilities. AAV and UAP should redirect to a dedicated page. SystemFailure0x5a (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Really? If such an an advanced aerial vehicle with"anomalous capabilities such as Inertial Mass Reduction and Metric Engineering" actually existed it would have its own Wikipedia article. Moriori (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
There's a case to be made here in that Unidentified Aerial Phenomena is the current terminology used by US state agencies, and can include incidents that don't involve a vehicle per se. The term is also often associated with proper research attempts, to deviate from its paranormal/pseudoscientific stigma, usually involving mentions in mainstream WP:RS of the few "confirmed" cases (confirmed as in officially deemed unidentified and/or being investigated) by state agencies, involving worries of potential US adversaries technological leaps, and open political discussion. In my opinion we need an article listing such incidents and research attempts. --Loganmac (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
It's tempting to split off a separate article about UAPs as foreign military technology, but there's still plenty of old school ufos-are-aliens proponents looking to ride this bandwagon [1], [2] and muddy the waters with paranormal/pseudoscience, so it's best to keep the article as it is until such time as a majority of reliable sources clarify the distinction. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
UAPs do not have to refer to solid objects or even have movement. This is a developing story, so I could see UAP being included in the intro as an "also known as" in the future rather than deeper in the article or even the article renamed UAP with UFO as an "aka" sometime down the road, or sky. Here are two government sources from the U.S. Navy and UK National Archives equating UFO and UAP. 5Q5|✉ 12:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Agree UAPs are a more modern phenomena, and mainly deal with the advanced nature of the vessel, as recorded by the US Navy. There oresence is verified by the government and advanced sensor technology, and navy personnel first hand accounts. They don't deal with abductions, little greem men coming through the bedroom window, and the classic UFO stuff. I think it should be separated, and no doubt the article can be built upon as the story develops (if it does!). Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
It is just a newer term, not a newer phenomenon. The term UFO has always had two meanings: officially "something in the sky I cannot identify" and inofficially "alien spaceship". Ufologists have always implicitly used the logic "I cannot identify it, therefore it is alien spacecraft", by playing switcheroo with the two meanings. UAP is just more of the same: the old term is associated with tinfoil hattery, and now they invent a new one, because that is how a euphemism treadmill works. We don't need two articles. We do not have two articles telekinesis and psychokinesis either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Occam's Razor

Occam's razor is not a scientific law nor is it a requirement in forming a hypothesis. While theories may be "outlandish" they cannot be scientifically dismissed by use of Occam's razor alone but rather through empirical evidence which falsifies the hypothesis. Tac62184 (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This page is for improving the article. Do you want to suggest an edit? If not, you have come to the wrong place. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. This sentence

"These violate Occam's razor.[13]"

Is subjective and invokes Occam's razor inappropriately Tac62184 (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Last sentence of the first paragraph of "Studies" Tac62184 (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

UFO enthusiasts tend to engage in special pleading by offering outlandish, untested explanations for the validity of the ETH. These violate Occam's razor. Right. Special pleading and outlandish untested explanations would violate Occams Razor in most cases. I am guessing the ones Novella has heard from UFO enthusiasts fall into this category. You might check his book for context (I don’t have full access). - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Since that sentence is sourced to a reliable source, saying you disagree does not constitute a valid reason for removing it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
The orignal poster is correct in that it is not a scientific law, but a Philosophical razor. Propose it be clarified to "the principle of Occam's razor" following the examples in Ross Quinlan, Normal conditions, Colobops, Robert Baldauf, Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Science, Acherontiscus, Scolosaurus, Charles Lafontaine, and Tophet. Don't wait for me to do this if it is a good suggestion. 5Q5|✉ 13:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
What Novella wrote (as these snippets hint) [3] refers to specific instances of how Occam applies to the arguments of UFO enthusiasts he has come across. He is not saying Occam applies to all UFO enthusiast arguments, and he is not declaring Occam a scientific Law. And as Hob Gadling points out, WP editors disagreeing with what a source is saying isn't a reason for modifying or removing it. So in this case, the issue is best solved by attribution, e.g. "according to Steven Novella..." or similar. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Luckylouie's suggestion is better than mine and is recommended by WP:INTEXT. 5Q5|✉ 11:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

UFOs confirmed by Pentagon

On April 27 2020, an unexplained aerial phenomena was confirmed by the Pentagon. This confirmation came after the videos were 'leaked' in 2007 and 2017. The confirmed videos show what pilots saw in 2004 and 2015.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/27/pentagon-releases-three-ufo-videos-taken-by-us-navy-pilots Rblaq (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

... and is heavily disputed. I've seen software problems that looked very similar to what was released. 50.111.15.47 (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Adequately explained here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/explained-new-navy-ufo-videos.11234/

In short: aircraft, aircraft, balloon.Skeptic2 (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The link you cite is low on substance - it is entirely based on assumptions and handwaving, basically the equivalent of the polar-opposite alien-pushing which uses assumptions and handwaving to 'argue' an extraterrestrial origin. It's what's wrong with so many 'debunkers' - so eager to debunk outrageous claims that they take the same kinds of shortcuts and accept the same level of insufficient evidence as those outrageous claims, often leading to takes that are themselves untenable. Your link proves nothing, and offers nothing of sufficient RS-level to merit inclusion in this article. The official US military position is that it doesn't know what the objects are, and that will have to do for encyclopedic content. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Someone who does not know something is not a useful source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
That is not a position that can stand up to scrutiny. To give a simple example: a 17th century medical source stating that it is not known what causes (what we now know to be) a bacterial infection is very useful in describing the medical knowledge of the period. On topic - the 'debunking' does not offer, in the slightest, a sufficient argument, let alone evidence, to merit inclusion. The official position of the military that the contents of the videos are unidentified is, at this time, the only valid position. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Bad comparison. A 20th century military source stating the same thing would be a better one.
We are talking about a subject for which two types of experts exist: ones who want to identify flying objects (skeptics) and ones who want to find ones (ufologists). Every time a UFO is identified, the skeptics win one and the ufologists lose one. So, the UFO skeptics are experts at identifying them, and ufologists are experts at not identifying them. The military organizes committees on UFOs from time to time, which may consist of one or the other type of expert. Accordingly, they find one thing or the other. The military are not experts themselves, they are customers of experts. When they say they don't know, that means they probably have chosen the type of experts who are good at not identifying stuff. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
That is a whole lot of conjecture on your part, and a whole lot of POV-pushing if you were to put any of that into the article. You clearly don't like the example I gave, but it is sound for its purpose - you stated that "someone who does not know something is not a useful source", which I disproved by a clear example of something unknown at the time and well-known today. The point, however, is sources: the 'debunking' source offered is just incredibly light-weight - that kind of thing is actually beneficial to the "aliens are everywhere"-crowd and bad for the people trying to make a serious and unbiased effort at identification. Why? Because debunkers of the type in the source above jump to premature conclusions on the basis of insufficient evidence, or even plain speculation (e.g., the "it was Venus"-line so often incorrectly employed). When it turns out one of those light-weight 'debunkings' is wrong (which they frequently turn out to be), the aliens-crowd can (and does) use it as 'proof' that the 'skeptics' are just making it up as they go along. The point for this article is simply that we need to go by what solid sources can tell us *now*. And right now, the only thing solid sources can give us is a "we don't know what this is". That might be very unsatisfying, but it is the best we have. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with 82.176.221.176 What Hob Gadling has presented here is his own personal theories, with no RS support. It is conjecture, and has no place in the article. Yes, fundamentally, the US Navy sources confirm the attributes and existence of the vessels, but otherwise, don't know what they are. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Is there some proposed change to the article? If not, bickering about "skeptics" isn't useful. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
It is conjecture, and has no place in the article. Good thing then that I never demanded that it should go into the article. It was an argument against using a non-expert source, the military. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@LuckyLouie - as I understood it, Skeptic2 wanted to use the source he provided to 'identify' the most recent batch of UFO-videos from the US military. As there has recently been a lot of media attention for these videos, and his proposal still stood unanswered, I wanted to make a statement against including any kind of lightweight 'debunking' identification. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah82.176.221.176 , the reference Skeptic2 provides ( https://www.metabunk.org) falls far far short of a RS - its just a forum post. I don't know if the author is a recognised expert or authority, but I'm not too confident in Mick Wests abilities, the US navy says they don't know what type of craft it is in their video, and his explanation is simply ..."oh, its a plane"....yeah.. Ok? Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
The first three posts in this thread are clearly conversational and not suggestions that the sources be inserted into the article, so your argumentation is entirely moot. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, LuckyLouie, you may see it that way, I did not, and that is why I gave a response, which I have supported with arguments and explained. I find your response less than civil and inappropriate. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

identification of a flying saucer shape

@LuckyLouie: the 1st source @ 21:10, 22 June 2021 was https://yeahmotor.com/aero/declassified-photos/20/

Just prior to adding the information (and after the CIA file ... disagreement between us) I viewed a youtube video here "10 Jaw-Dropping UFO Sightings Caught On Camera" ~7,364,069 views - which looks incredible, whether it's real or non-real. The video lists 10, the part which I wanted to bring to your attention is the 1st commencing @ 6:05 in (6:28 to 6:30 seems inexplicable I suppose); q.v. this criteria, with regards, Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC) minor change after signature Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC) changed "c.f." to q.v. after signature Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually I neglected to include 7th commencing @ 2:12, for your attention, (particularly 2:34 and after), with regards, Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

and 3 commencing 4:37 with a female news-reporter - didn't necessarily provide credibility that it was reported (I had the sound muted during views); particularly 5:01 and after, I found worth reviewing, with regards, Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC) change after signature 21:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

YouTube isn’t a WP:RS reliable source. I’m not impressed with WP:SENSATIONAL clickbait from yeahmotor.com. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes I agree with you, which is the reason I included it here instead of in the article. I just mentioned the site because we are working during the some period on the article, and since it was the 1st source I thought it could indicate to you that although the source isn't RS it did contain the link I needed to the Avro craft, so it had some sourcing value, where RS causes the complete discrediting of these type of sources, in my experience certainly; also I didn't want to lose the research route/path, is the reason I added it here, instead of deleting. Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC) minor change after signature 22:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC) minor change after signature 22:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I included the youtube video because the 1st looks realistic, it isn't my intention to use it as a source, but obvs. there are images in the article which are discredited to a degree (i.e. the stereotypical flying saucer, perhaps), so your lack of conviction doesn't need to disvalue the inclusion of an image which could be faux. Considering esp. the veracity of the video images is disputed (by yourself at least), unless there is a RS showing the discredit of any image, there isn't any route for either of us or any other user to discredit an image. Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Tombaugh

Astronomer Clyde Tombaugh, who claimed to have seen six UFOs

Why "claim"? He saw something in the sky he could not explain. Six times. That is rather normal and ordinary and does not merit the word "claim". It is unfortunate that people use "UFO" as a placeholder for "alien spaceship". I am removing the word now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Mass Hysteria

List mass hysteria as a cause for UFOs as well. The article on "lists of mass hysteria" lists as such as well.Chantern15 (talk) 07:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Adding as "psychological" under identification.Chantern15 (talk) 07:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)chantern15

US Intelligence UFO Data Dump

CIA: [1] FBI: [2] NSA: [3] (Probably Balloons Is Their Most Common Classification) NRO: NO RECORDS [4] DIA: [5] ONI: I'm not aware of any SFD7: Not aware of any

If you have any sources from any other intelligence agencies, please add. Chantern15 (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

What can be made of this information and included in the article?Chantern15 (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

References

  1. ^ https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/cia/CIAUFOCD-FULL-CONVERTED.zip
  2. ^ https://vault.fbi.gov/UFO
  3. ^ https://www.nsa.gov/news-features/declassified-documents/ufo/
  4. ^ https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/F16-0010_Greenewald.pdf
  5. ^ https://www.dia.mil/FOIA/FOIA-Electronic-Reading-Room/FOIA-Reading-Room-Other-Available-Records/FileId/39984/
Info included, thank you!Chantern15 (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Electronic Warfare

Why was electronic warfare removed as a category under "assessment of the reality of the sightings"? It's present as sub-category in the "identification studies of ufos" article, it's not based on hot air, it's a genuine reason. Could it please be reincluded?Chantern15 (talk) 06:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15

CEFAA, Chile

I just noticed the CEFAA of Chile is not mentioned anywhere in the wikipedia. CEFAA, Committee for Studies of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena, since 1997, recently renamed SEFAA (Section for Studies of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena), is the oficial governmental section for the study of these reports in the Republic of Chile, and perhaps the first stablished in South America. Since I am not allowed to edit the article, may any of you decide whether add this info or not. Mauchileno (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2022

73.148.222.42 (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I would like to edit the information and give everyone more information about all of our seeings

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Icabobin (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial?

There seems to be a bias in this article regarding the potential source of the phenomenon. The article assumes that UFOs would be extraterrestrial if they were to actually exist. This assumption ignores the high likelihood that such objects, and their pilots, could be from earth. The deep oceans and earth's crust could just as likely be the origin of some sort of sentient species. The article pushes the bias that such crafts are space fairing vessels but there's no evidence that they can even operate in the vacuum of space. What I'm saying is that this article is about an unknown phenomenon and it shouldn't be trying to exclude explanations. If these are vehicles piloted by non human pilots, its actually much more likely that they'd be from earth. Earth's crust is huge and there's plenty of places for an undiscovered species to exist.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the article shouldn't take the bias that, if some UFOs are from a different civilization, they'd have to be from another planet. [— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2d80:6304:c00:95e5:1eb1:a612:3185 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

We follow the reliable sources. If reliable sources talk a lot about the loons who believe UFOs are vehicles driven by extraterrestrials and very little about the loons who think UFOs are vehicles driven by elves, that's how it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Why call people who believe, or think that UFOs are ET, loons, when scientists like Hynek and Vallee (among others) supported the hypothesis?Chantern15 (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)chantern15
You start from the wrong assumption that those groups are mutually exclusive. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Loons? The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (a bipartisan group of 14 Senators) just unanimously passed legislation in Aug. 2022 concerning the additional work needed to classify these threats to national security, and even stated in a very public way many are "not man-made", and the "threats to national security are increasing exponentially." If your intent is to ridicule others on this talk page, I would suggest you re-read the rules of Wikipedia concerning this issue. 136.34.135.202 (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Interesting. I checked the sources for this assertion (Vice, The Hill, etc.) and it turns out to be clickbait: Congress *seems* to infer that UFOs are not man-made, according to some individuals misinterpretation. And the original source for this misinterpretation is, you guessed it, a ufologist. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
what is the source this was a "mis-interpretation"? I just finished reading all 135 pages of Senate Bill 4503, and I would direct your attention to page 106 and 107 of said draft Senate Bill. The bill specifically mentions segregating "transmedium objects" which cannot be explained as "man-made". When the word "seems" is used in the articles you looked-up, it would appear to be appropriate language given the actual source contained in Senate Bill 4503. By the way, Dr. Michio Kaku, Dr. Garry Nolan, and many other prominent scientists have publicly-stated the burden of proof is now on the skeptics. 136.34.135.202 (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
after you have finished reading page 106 and 107 of the draft Senate Bill 4503, I would suggest reading the additional pages from 108 through 117. Those pages are pretty "interesting" too. I was a skeptic too. It's ok. 136.34.135.202 (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s4503/BILLS-117s4503rs.pdf#page=106
Just in case you would like to read the actual bill rather than rely on newspaper articles, here is the actual text from draft Senate Bill 4503. 136.34.135.202 (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Sifting WP:PRIMARY sources and interpreting them yourself...no thanks. Regarding the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims and/or speculation that the US government has somehow declared alien technology exists, I'll wait for multiple reliable sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I get it. I too was a skeptic to the "nth" degree. I am not even sure it is "alien". Maybe "it" has been here all along. Maybe "it" is a master of illusion. One thing is for absolute certain: no politician will stand a chance on a podium declaring that "UFOs exist, we don't know what they are, who they are, or how they operate, and we have no defense for preventing incursions into our domain." Half the people wouldn't believe it, the other half would empty the store shelves. 136.34.135.202 (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Life would be more exciting if proof that UFOs were alien spacecraft/transdimension beings/supernatural hoodoo/etc. was due to be confirmed any day now, but ufo enthusiasts have been promising that since the 1950s - and it hasn't happened yet.- LuckyLouie (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
You are still wrongly assuming that two groups of people are mutually exclusive. This time the groups are senators and loons, or maybe congresspeople and loons.
Your opinion does not matter, and it does not matter that you had another opinion once. We have follow the reliable sources - see WP:RS - and the reliable sources do not mention nun-human earthling pilots, be they goblins, yetis, orcs, or platypuses. If you find a reliable source that does, bring it. What's so difficult about understanding that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
who are you talking to? 136.34.135.202 (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
You can see which contribution someone responds to by looking the indentation. See WP:INDENT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
oh, ok. I went to my original post to you, and it said "Loons?...If your intent is to ridicule others on this talk page, I would suggest you re-read the rules of Wikipedia concerning this issue" WP:CIV 136.34.135.202 (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
It has been exactly two weeks since it was pointed-out you may be in violation of WP:CIV with your reference to "loons" when applied across the board. I may be misunderstanding your 2 posts above, but it would appear you are "doubling-down" with the same reference, now directed toward an entire group of Congressional staff. I would respectfully ask you to strike-through the uncivil comment, or re-word it calmly and neutrally. 136.34.135.202 (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
WP:CIV is about how we are supposed to treat other editors. Brunton (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. It is intended to relate to a whole range of civil discourse between editors and entire groups of individuals. The post suggests that anyone who follows or studies UFOs is a "loon", and I would contend is acting in an uncivil manner. It could also be a form of "baiting" as discussed in WP:CIV 136.34.135.202 (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The word "loon" is short for "not a reliable source because they believe far-out stuff which, according to mainstream consensus, is not justified by the evidence." There is no reason to believe that the opinions of politicians are any more reality-based than those of a random person. They are not reliable sources. One of the purposes of secret services is misleading the secret services of other states. They are not reliable sources. When a ufologist can not identify a flying object, that is not astonishing because it is the job of a ufologist to not identify flying objects. They are not reliable sources. Maybe you should just read WP:RS.
WP:CIV says, Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In other words, you are wrong when you disagree. Can you now stop digressing and WP:FOCUS? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I am still awaiting a response to the original "loon" references you made, ostensibly to ridicule those who study UFOs whether they are politicians, editors, or anyone else. Again, I would respectfully ask you strike-out those references, or reword in a neutral way. 136.34.135.202 (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Do you have any actual suggestions (with supporting references) about improvements to the article? Brunton (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
It’s just WP:SENSATIONAL clickbait based on speculations of a ufologist: UFO researcher Douglas Johnson has spotted what might as well be the first-ever admission from the U.S. government that specific UFO sightings have non-human origins, Vice said in its report. Unfortunately some media outlets indulge in this sort of thing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
who are you talking to? 136.34.135.202 (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

"People", pronouns, "nascent", and incorrect math

Can we refactor this statement (with the required references of course, to be provided): From current: "The closest sun (star) to our Sun is 24 trillion miles away. If people living there traveled at ten million miles per hour it would take them more than two million years to get here; so barring any nascent technology, it is unlikely earth is being visited by anyone." To something like this, for starters: "The closest star (Proxima Centauri) to the Sun is 40.2 trillion km away. If one were to travel away from the Sun at a rate equal to Voyager 1 (17.3 km/s), to reach this distance would take 73,000 years. Such distances are probitively long given known physics and current technology." Kalem014 (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm uncertain the passage should be there in the first place. It is true, but unless the statement qualifies as WP:BLUE it is also WP:OR. Any chance you can locate a reliable source that provides the same information? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, I was unsure as well, so opted to merely improve it for now at least.
1. Reference for Proxima Centauri info, Voyager 1 velocity, and transit time, etc., is found here:
https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/features/cosmic/nearest_star_info.html
2. Ref for current and future feasibility of interstellar travel:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20180006480/downloads/20180006480.pdf
Apologies if that was not the best way to provide refs. Very new here. Thanks! -- Kalem014 (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Either version would be WP:SYNTH. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, to be clear, the last sentence of the revised entry is supported by reference 2 alone. The info for all but the last sentence are taken directly from reference 1 alone. So, I'm not seeing SYNTH on the updated version, but very interested to hear your explanation if I'm missing something. Thanks! Kalem014 (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Rather than me dredge through it, can you point me to the part of the source that fairly explicitly says it's unlikely UFOs are visitors from another planet because of the distances involved? Better yet, why not cite and attribute a single reliable source rather than trying to cobble separate sources together. For example, here's one that would do nicely: "Because of the great distances involved, interstellar space travel is very slow and very expensive, it seems unlikely that the dozens of UFOs (and even UFO abductions) claimed each year could all be visitors from other stars..." —Voyages to the Planets, Volume 1 of Voyages through the universe, (page 356) Andrew Fraknoi, David Morrison, Sidney C. Wolff. Brooks/Cole--Thomson Learning, 2004
- LuckyLouie (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I see your point. I was focused on the smaller section, as it is in dire need of improvement, rather than the broader context.
The lead-in section + the first TOC section ("Challenges") under Interstellar_travel seems to provide something similar to what we are trying to achieve here. -- Kalem014 (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

This edit added WP:OR in an attempt to explain “why scientists are skeptical”, and so was removed. As far as I know, there’s no mandate that we must find a way to make it work. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you. Kalem014 (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Cases of UFOs

The titles that are proposed for UFOs are originally from the world of conjectures and assumptions that originate from the real world. Mafmmfam84 (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand the point you are trying to make. The purpose of article Talk pages is to present and discuss content, with the goal being to improve the article. Do you have any specific, reliably-sourced additions (or removals) to make to this article? If not, I ask you to please read WP:TPG and WP:SOAP before posting here again. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Why do the lede, images, and content in this article not reflect standard terms and topics?

This article looks and reads like a strange time capsule of past debates without engaging standard contemporary terms, categories, and events. For example, it strikes me as bizarre and ridiculous that the Pentagon UFO videos are not noted in the lede for this article. I get that Wikipedia should not reflect passing fads on these topics, but the standard concerns and language being used publicly in U.S. military and legislative work for a long time now (surrounding questions with what the military calls UAPs) has been entirely different in tone and technical content than what this article represents in it's current language and visuals. Can we talk about making some improvements here so that the lede and content reflects actual standard terms and images? The visually out-dated, childish, and head-in-the-sand feeling to this article is a serious public disservice. Wikipedia would actually go a long way toward helping the public to be better informed about the content of events such as the recent David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims if this main UFO article more accurately reflected the standard terms and thoughts of those working in the government and media related to this broad topic.

@Miserlou: based on a little that I have seen, I strongly suspect that editors such as you get left out of conversations and decisions that could significantly improve this main article if we could somehow agree on a slightly different and more constructive approach to this overall topic.

To everyone: while working on the David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims, I think I engaged with a few editors who are very active in this area. I really don't know much about it at all, but I appeal to everyone to weigh in with any thoughts about how we might seriously consider seeking a better paradigm. Jjhake (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean I agree, but I have no domain specific knowledge in this area, I'm just trying to untangle what the military/IC is talking about and the sci-fi/Art Bell/little-green-men stuff of old. It seems like this topic attracts rabid fanatics and deboonkers with a lot of history with each other, who seem unwilling to approach the topic from the standards of Wikipedia.
To me, what would be really useful is if somebody could find a really good neutral source, ideally academic, explaining the history of "UFO" vs "UAP". I've sort of seen it as "UAPs" = "UFOs + the Scientific Method", but a user on the other thread suggested I am a victim of manipulation for thinking that way. There are also a lot of "experts" out there, but anybody who calls themself a "UFO" or "UAP" expert doesn't seem trustworthy to me. I found this, but it's not a great source: https://science.howstuffworks.com/space/aliens-ufos/uaps.htm. IDK. This will get sticky. Miserlou (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't have any expertise here either. I'm a historian (with only the junior-most claim to the guild having an MLitt from St Andrews in Scotland) and a K-12 educator. But the fact that something is unhelpful and wrong in the current approach seems obvious. What to do about it is not so clear. One simple solution is to allow two different main articles on UFOs and UAPs so that the UFO article stays as this one currently is: focused on the long history and folk-lore and endless (much needed) debunking. Meanwhile the UAPs main article can focus on the technical questions of some currently unexplained category of observations that the U.S. government has clearly decided to address publicly to some extent. Just making this simple distinction would free good Wikipedia editors up to work more effectively and to make these distinctions as these distinctions are showing up regularly in news and events in recent years. Jjhake (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I mean I think that sounds good in theory, but to a lot of people that's going to look like we're splitting into "UFOs" and "UFOs, but real this time", which isn't going to go over well. I think it's a fundamentally impossible problem - there's so much kookery and so much government opacity that until a paper examining exotic alloys recovered from a craft of unknown origin appears in Nature, there's never going to be an easy answer. One thing that might help, just for people who are trying to use Wikipedia the way it's supposed to be used and get some solid reference on a topic, is if there were a canonical page of the history of all US government UAP programs. There are pages for individual reports, but I haven't found anything discussing government UAP programs as a meta-topic. They're even actually hard to find because somebody on the boonk squad has been very insistent on calling the pages things like "UFO Report" rather than the actual name of the report (Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena), so even just finding them on Wikipedia is difficult. Miserlou (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Richard Doty - Statements Made by Governmental Employees

I added a small portion concerning the allegations made by Richard Doty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanwilliams101 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Isn't he former DIA agent in charge disinformation gave the story of Project Serco exchange program between US Government of Planet Earth and Grey Alien/Ebens live on Planet in the Zeta Reticuli Star system — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkunreal93 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

content added just now in the history of the "20th century and after" section

All, rather than just grumble and grump vaguely on the talk page here (as I have above recently), I tried to write up a history that gives a fuller and less exclusively polemical picture of this very long and messy UFO story in the United States (and beyond at this point). I'm dropping a note here to invite questions and requests from any other editors about this added content in this section as I know a little about the discipline of history but not much about UFOs or Wikipedia writing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object#20th_century_and_after

I hope that some of it might be helpful on this topic. --Jjhake (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Bill Ellis, another Penn State university folklore professor with UFO publications

I was surprised a few weeks back to find nothing in this voluminous Wikipedia article from Penn State professor Greg Eghigian. I'm finding another Penn State professor (emeritus), Bill Ellis, who has a specialization in contemporary folklore to also be absent despite several helpful books and articles on the topic. This critical approach through history and cultural studies seems glaringly absent in this article overall, and I hope that others will pick up on this and help. Jjhake (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Sorry folks. I had to revert the article to a version prior to noted copyright violations [4]. I can provide more details if necessary, but I would rather not identify any particular editor at this point. Please feel free to continue editing this article. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for catching my failure there to properly quote my hero Greg Eghigian. Jjhake (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
"noted copyright violations"
Where were these alleged copyright violations noted?
What were they?
I notice that in the diff to which you linked
you made a number of editorial changes that seem to have nothing to do with copyright violations.
I don't want to dispute those, but it seems disingenuous to label all those changes as related to copyright violations.
Do you disagree? KHarbaugh (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
All revisions that contained copyright violations should be reverted, that's how it is done on Wikipedia. Actually, they should be deleted from the history as well. @Steve Quinn:, you should add a {{Copyvio-revdel}} template to the page to request that. Or alternatively, provide a url for the source that was infringed and I can do it. MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
@MrOllie: thanks for giving the above editor the straight story. As for myself, I am not familiar with dealing with a large copyvio as happened in this instance. I only knew enough to revert the page. If you could add the tag, it would be much appreciated. And I will watch what you do. I will have to ferret out the url's from which the plagiarism occurred if that is needed. This certainly needs to be dealt with. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Here is the url for one source that was infringed: [5]. I will have to find the other one. I am assuming two urls can be added to the template.---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Here is the other one: [6]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I added the template, and admin should be along in a bit. MrOllie (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

20th century section

Individuals who are scientists may say things to newspapers but scientific journals show no “controversy” about UFOs whatsoever. We really should not assert in Wikipedia’s voice In addition to these controversies within the sciences. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Makes sense. I'm sure this attempt to correct isn't the best, but I took a shot: In addition to these considerations about data collection and analysis within the sciences... Jjhake (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I would resist the urge to create smooth-sounding transitions in Wikipedia's voice that characterize what came before and connect it to what's coming next. Leave it to the historians to "connect the dots". US government agencies like NASA may have scientists on staff, but that doesn't mean UFOs are being given attention "within the sciences". I'd leave that transition out altogether. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Makes sense. One of the three transitions that you removed just now was reflected in a couple of the secondary sources, but the principle makes sense. The many news stories about NASA's UAP study team reference NASA's sated purpose of bringing the rigors of the science method (and such phrases) to the task of UAP data collection and analysis, but I see how this is a very different thing from such analysis showing up within scientific journals and how my phrasing implied the second. Jjhake (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Style notes

@Jjhake: Loving a lot of your contributions here, but please try to avoid over reliance on quotations. Many of the things you are including as quotations can be summarized or paraphrased without direct quotes. Only include quotes if it is important to the editorial point and cannot be handled any other way. So, for example, when emphasizing an opinion, a unique phrasing, or a longform analytical idea. Simple facts do not need to be attributed to a single person and, indeed, runs somewhat afoul of WP:ASSERT. jps (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

That is helpful. Thank you. In so far as others don't get to it ahead of me, I'll plan to circle back through and summarize or paraphrase where direct quotes are not an opinion, etc. Jjhake (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I see that you've got a good start on it already. Thanks. Jjhake (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

"Non-Human Intelligence" (NHI)

First they renamed it to UAP. Now they call it NHI. What's up with all the renaming recently? Call it by another name just to confuse people or is it to deflect Freedom Of Information requests that must explicitly say UFO vs UAP vs NHI vs ...<yet unknown abbreviations> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foerdi (talk • contribs) 04:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

If you’re interested in the history of “non-human” as a term, it’s used heavily in Diana Walsh Pasulka‘s 2019 book with Oxford UP which is interesting at several levels. Jjhake (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
My dog is non-human, and very intelligent. HiLo48 (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
You mean it is again the Russians putting poor dogs inside flying crafts and sending these into US airspace to create UFO mass panic? I had the feeling Putin loved dogs ... Foerdi (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Project Blue Book files

The whole Project Blue Book files (+10,000 documents) will be available on Commons soon. See c:Category:Project Blue Book. Yann (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Full matter 106.221.187.53 (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Description of Greg Eghigian’s forthcoming UFO history with Oxford UP

Looks very good! Long wait. Description posted here:

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/after-the-flying-saucers-came-9780190869878?cc=us&lang=en& Jjhake (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Difference between "Investigations of reports" and "Studies"?

What is the difference between these two large, sprawling, and redundant main sections in the article body?

  • Investigations of reports
  • Studies

I can think of several differences, but it would help to start cutting down on some redundancy in the article body if these two main sections were consolidated under a common main heading. Thoughts? I'll also look through talk page archives some more to see if this organization has been talked about before. Jjhake (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Definition

Re this revert. That definition is pertinent to the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office article and may be included there. This article is about UFOs in general, not just US government based perspectives. Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Does this really belong in the lead? Someone please assist this new user with understanding how to use en.wikipedia.org. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I have removed that content from the lede. It just doesn't fit there, as this is a general article about UFOs. The current perspective/vernacular of NASA, ESA, Roscosmos, etc. (or indeed any government) can perhaps be mentioned later in the article, but prominently presented in the lead as if it has definitive standing? No. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Looks like the discussion is taking place in this section above. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unidentified_flying_object/Archive_9&oldid=1187591415"