Talk:Unidentified flying object/Archive 2

message: :'A fuller definition was given by Dr. J. Allen Hynek, late astronomer, U.S. Air Force consultant and UFO proponent, as "the reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon the land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behaviour of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible." 
:The U.S. Air Force adopted a similar official definition in 1954, saying a UFO is "any airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object."  In addition, investigation was stated to be for the purposes of national security and to ascertain "technical aspects." (USAF document)
:By the stricter definitions, something must remain unidentified and have anomalous characteristics to be classified as a UFO. Such characteristics, as noted by early Air Force studies dating back to 1947, might include unconventional shape, high speed and/or acceleration, high maneuverability, extreme rate of climb, absence of sound and/or trail, formation flying, and/or evasion upon pursuit.  (USAF document) 
:A number of conventional and unconventional theories have been proposed to explain UFOs. However, the original working term UFO has largely become popularized in the public mind with the notion that UFOs might be extraterrestrial spacecraft (the ETH or Extraterrestrial hypothesis).  However, no incontrovertible physical evidence of the existence of such spacecraft has been presented, though many forms of disputed physical evidence do exist in the public domain'.
Please be patient. The core of this material will return to the main article as my edits (b) --> (d) specified above are completed. Adhib 20:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed superfluous material

message: :On January 25, 1878, The Denison Daily News wrote that John Martin, a local farmer, the previous day had reported seeing a large, dark, circular flying object resembling a balloon flying "at wonderful speed," and also used the word "saucer" in describing it.  This may be the first known use of the word "saucer" to describe an unidentified flying object. Some seventy years later in 1947, the media used the term "flying saucers" to describe Kenneth Arnold's sighting.
:The nine objects Kenneth Arnold reported were not strictly saucer-shaped. Arnold initially described and drew a picture of eight of the objects as being thin and flat, circular in the front but truncated in the back and coming to a point. (See Kenneth Arnold for drawing and verbal descriptions.) Another drawing was of a ninth, somewhat larger object with a boomerang or crescent shape, resembling a flying wing aircraft. However, several years later Arnold said he had described their movement as a kind of skipping, like a saucer skimming over water. He complained that the press misquoted him, picking up the "like a saucer" phrase, and reported it as a "flying saucer". 
:"Flying disks" was another term commonly used by the media to describe the objects in the late 1940s and early 1950s.  
:By mid-1950, a Gallup poll revealed that the term "flying saucer" had become so deeply ingrained in the American vernacular that 94% of those polled were familiar with it, making it the best-known term appearing in the news, easily beating out others like "universal military training" (75%), "bookie" (67%), or "cold war" (58%).  
:Hollywood science fiction movies in the 1950s, such as The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), Forbidden Planet (1956), and Earth vs. the Flying Saucers (1956), depicting flying saucer-like craft, further entrenched the term as a cultural icon. So did popular books on the subject such as Frank Scully's Behind the Flying Saucers (1950), Donald Keyhoe's The Flying Saucers Are Real (1950) and Flying Saucers From Outer Space (1953), and "contactee"-oriented books, such as George Adamski's Flying Saucers Have Landed (1953). 
:"Flying Saucer" was the preferred term for most unidentified aerial sightings from the late 1940s to the 1960s, even for those that were not actually saucer-shaped. The term "UFO" was more commonly used by the late 1960s.
In an article this massive, we can't indulge in six paragraphs of etymology for a different term - saucers. Should go into an etymological wiktionary. Adhib 20:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More superfluous material

message: :The cover of the paperback edition of Communion introduced a standard "grey" alien-head appearance charactierized by a large lozenge-shaped head sharpening to a pointed chin, a small slit for the mouth and large pointed lozenge-shaped eyes canted downwards towards the nose (this was later satirized in Schwa). Both Strieber and Vallee were led to doubt that these beings were "extraterrestrials" as the term is ordinarily understood, and see more of a connection to elf and fairy lore. (Cf. Jung's comparison with angelic visions in his article Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies.) 
All fine, but peripheral to the article subject, which must be, resolutely, UFOs. Adhib 20:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: aliens are not UFOs

message: :An unforeseen difficulty with the term "UFO" is that it often leads to semantic debates between skeptics and advocates. Skeptics often argue that UFO simply means that the object was "unidentified" by those making the sighting and doesn't mean the object is unexplainable, much less extraterrestrial. In contrast, researchers like Hynek have argued that the term should be strictly limited to those sightings that have been intensively investigated and still defy conventional explanation, which was the actual definition adopted by the Air Force in official directives in the 1950s. 
Adhib 20:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: reserving this material for a 'controversies' section

message: The article is still flabby in parts, but the worst of the excess lard is burned-off, above. I'm pausing here for an isotonic drink and to give consensus a chance to come panting up to the finish line. Back in week or two to see what y'all make of 'er. Adhib 21:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chickenfat nearly burnt-off

message: You people have got to see these tapes. Link is:UFO Videos of 2005. Warning: Some of these tapes may have language issues. Martial Law 02:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UFO videos

message: On 2-15-06 @ 15:34:00, the Sci-Fi Channel show aired a program called In Search Of.....
this one featured alien abduction, animal and human mutilation. This show featured a report in which a US Army Sgt. was abducted by aliens ans his mutilated remains were found by another non-com( PFC to a sergeant). The same non-com had seen the UFO that picked up the now mutilated sergeant. A Jim Hickman had cited this case, his book called 5,000 Years of UFOs on the show. Had to  speed input this here, since Wikipedia is a bit buggy: It has a Data Loss bug. Can this book be checked ? Martial Law 00:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sci Fi Channel Show

message: I removed the following rambling prose from the preamble:
:When UFOs gained widespread publicity in the summer of 1947 – called "flying saucers" then – citizens besieged the government to answer the question, what they were. Soon they found out that the government would not or could not solve the puzzle and confused them with contradictory explanations: the flying objects in the skies were a serious matter, and again, the sightings were altogether hysteria, misinterpretations and hoaxes. The established UFO investigations group of the Air Force at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton/Ohio turned out to generally be a low-key undertaking. Citizens felt cheated and began to investigate on their own. Not before long, private organizations were established by engineers, scientists, high ranking officials, journalists, authors, etc. in order to gather information on the objects – treating the discriminated observers with dignity -, to make the results of their investigations available to the public. Their main goal was to urge the government to establish a genuinely scientific UFO research agency and to appropriately prepare the public to something of seemingly greater order than the Copernican revolution.
:The private investigators' books, articles and public appearances in the media aroused widespread interest, and the subject matter increasingly became the talk of the day, especially in times of UFO flaps, for example, in 1952, when for a week UFOs buzzed even Washington. The government strengthened their efforts to minimize or eliminate public interest in the matter. By and by the efforts of the private investigators and UFO organizations were also counteracted by a small number of academic "debunkers" and a growing number of other authors calling themselves "skeptics" who engaged themselves in supporting rationalism and fighting pseudoscience. Unfortunately for the UFO researchers, the "skeptics" propagate the debunking UFO explanations of the government. Nevertheless, the majority of Americans meanwhile take UFOs as a matter of fact. The government terminated Project Blue Book in 1969: there was no need to further pursue the matter. Since then there is the amazing spectacle of a nation, still thought of as a super might, that leaves the most spectacular issue – intelligent beings in other worlds of the universe, long foreseen by scientists like von Weizsäcker – to other lands, like maybe Europe or China, the dragon that begins to spread its wings - to accept and tackle the not only military but especially cultural challenge of a future of our world within many worlds, some of them surely behind us, others apparently far ahead. 
I will do likewise with any further witless opining. Adhib 19:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bwilcke, I regret I lack the spare time to alert you to the full scale of the problem with your contribution, erudite as it may seem to you, hence my abrupt manner. Feel free to refer to other editors if you honestly believe my edit to be without foundation. Adhib 23:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adhib, you are THREATENING, again your DICTATORIAL behaviour. I am afraid, you should go to a psychiatrist. -- Bwilcke 04:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent additions 

message: Fair enough, but that's really enough. The article has already crept back up to 40k. We don't need chapter and verse here - if ghost rockets are a story that matters, they can have their own article. Well. will ya lookit that? They do already. Adhib 19:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ghost rockets

message: Alright I saw this on the DISCOVERY chanell, so they would not bs us about this..But I remember them showing the viewers how in old paintings they would paint a UFO in the background....Should we include this in the article?
: A lot of what is on the Discovery channel is not true (same thing for the History channel).  There are old paintings that look like what we would think of as a UFO, but who knows if it depicts a UFO they saw.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UFO in ancient paintings?

message: The top photo in this article is captioned "Amateur photograph of alleged UFO, Passoria, New Jersey, 1952". No supporting explanation, no references. So I clicked on the image for source info and info about the content. The source was given as the CIA in this article.  However, that article has no mention of this except for a sub-heading "Passiforia, New Jersey, 31 July 1952". When you click on that heading it takes you to the image which appears in our UFO article!. A circular route, with no info whatsoever. Unless someone can post details/references about this image to justify its inclusion it should be removed from  Wiki IMMHO. Moriori 22:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the image  in that article unavailable to you? Adhib 19:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's why I wrote "When you click on that heading it takes you to the image which appears in our UFO article!. A circular route, with no info whatsoever." Moriori 19:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I'm still not understanding you. You can't be concerned that Wikimedia's copy of the image and its original are the same image? Which aspect of the usage needs to be corrected? I'll do it if I can. Adhib 17:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No Adhib, I am not concerned that they are the same image. I am concerned that neither image has source info to provide details/references such as who took the photo, how we know it was an amateur photographer, etc. When you try to find information about the photo on the Wiki page you are taken to a site where you are in turn taken to the very same image which also has no details/references.  This circular route means that the Wiki photo which has no source description is being justified by the very same photo (elsewhere)  which also has no source description. I hope that is clearer.  Moriori 19:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your patience - I think I get it now. Better than the disclaimer caption, which does somewhat beg the question why it's our first choice, let's find a better image to replace this one entirely. Adhib 21:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The photo in question has appeared in numerous pieces of UFO literature over my 40 years of researching them. The photo is one of others taken by George Stock in Passaic, New Jersey (not Passaforia). I have a magazine issue that presents the other fourphotos that were taken in sequence. The case was listed as Unidentified and he photos could not be proven fake. Another set of photos taken in McMinnville, Oregon by Paul Trent on May 11, 1950 represent one of the best researched UFO photos remaining as an Unidentified Flying Object that is approximately 70 foot in diameter and apparently metallic was reserached by a friend of mine from Ground Saucer Watch at JPL. These photos and others can be provided if you desire them. Rich 03:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo needs justifying, or removal

message: :I've moved the Plait book reference over to a new section on Identified Flying Objects (IFOs).  In his book, Plait further claims that Venus causes a "majority" of UFO reports.  This is another of Plait's made-up "facts."  Two major studies detailed in the IFO article, (Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14 and Alan Hendry's more skeptical results) prove that Plait's claim is just more skeptical garbage, unsupported by the actual data. Dr Fil 02:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the Plait reference, which I think clearly belongs in the article. Tom Harrison Talk 02:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right - it is a reference, as in the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Citing sources, as well as Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it is still being referenced directly from within the article, it is a legitimate reference.  That is a lot different from Plait's book being a source of legitimate UFO information or Plait being the least bit knowledgeable about the subject.  Neither is true.  Read the above comments, if you dare, which completely disprove Plait's statement that amateur astronomers (or professional ones for that matter) never see or report UFOs.  Plait made it up, hardly material for a legitimate scientific article.  If you leave Plait's bogus statement in there, I am obliged to shoot it down with the posted information above proving it total garbage.  Dr Fil 03:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More Plait nonsense

message: Here's a comment from Dr Fil that I'm moving from my talk page, in case anyone else has thoughts:
:There are excellent reasons to remove the Plait book as a UFO book that have nothing to do with POV.  Plait's book is not about UFO's.  It's about what he thinks are misconceptions that have some relation to astronomy.  There is one chapter on UFOs.  OK, but the problem is the two items already cited from this chapter turn out to be phony arguments, things that Plait made up.  They're not supported by the actual literature or scientific studies.    
:Plait claimed that amateur astronomers literally never report UFOs.  Where did he get that--a scientific study perhaps?  No, he made it up.  Actual surveys show that astronomers, amateur and professional, have sighted UFOs in roughly the same proportions as the general public.  In a 1969 survey, 22% of the amateur sample reported UFOs, actually greater than the population as a whole.  Surveys of professionals reveal about 5-10% reporting UFOs.  The other made up fact cited was Plait's statement that Venus accounted for a majority of UFO reports.  Actual exhaustive scientific studies put it at more like 10-20%.  No study has ever come remotely near Plait's >50% number.
:Thus Plait's UFO "facts" are fabricated and misinformation.  Wiki is an encyclopedia.  Why should such a deeply flawed, erroneous book be used as a reference?  Let's compile a GOOD list of UFO references.  There are infinitely better UFO reference books out there.  E.g., a good skeptical look at UFO misidentification is Allan Hendry's "UFO Handbook", a detailed statistical look at over 1300 cases personally investigated by Hendry for CUFOS.  
:BTW, while I deleted Plait's book over on the UFO article, it was moved over to the new IFO article where his erroneous Venus "fact" is again cited (as it was in the UFO article).  Plait's statement is then contrasted with what actual studies show.  This is an appropriate use of the reference. Dr Fil 17:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment from Dr Fil

message: Sorry, I messed up the nion-English links when I took the whole article to an external text editor for editing.  I'll be more careful in the future.  Bubba73 (talk), 18:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have that problem with my text editor too. I can't use it if the work involves any non-English characters. I have to cut and paste from one edit window to the other. If you figure out how to get your text editor to handle it, please let me know. Tom Harrison Talk 18:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry, my error 

message: I'm concerned that Identified Flying Objects (IFOs) may develop as a POV fork from this article, with all 'favorable' information going into one and 'unfavorable' into another. I think it's important to present the reader with a balanced factual account. I'm afraid that may be harder to do if the articles are seperate. Does anyone else have thoughts?  Tom Harrison Talk 02:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I share your concerns.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There were concerns expressed about the UFO article being way too long, followed by a massive "chickfat" editing-out of material.  It was also suggested that various lengthy topics might best be dealt with in separate Wiki articles.  Even after the chickenfat editing, the IFO section was still extremely long.  It was also filled with various factual inaccuracies (some, as usual, inserted by Bubba, such as the Plait garbage about Venus explaining most UFO reports).  A separate, expanded IFO section seemed the way to go, enabling expansion of statistics and more detailed comparison of studies, also a way to expand discussion of questionable assertions such as Plait's.  This shortened the UFO article considerably, with the IFO material now quickly summarized and the new article linked to. Dr Fil 20:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I originally tried to put in the Plait material as a direct quote, to emphasize that it was his take on the matter.  Although Venus accounts for more UFO sightings than anything else, it is not true that it accounts for more than 50% (a majority).  That is why I first put it in as a direct quote (which was deleted multiple times), and then put it in clearly as something Plait said, based on his own experience.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What was your defense before?  It was something about Plait being a well-known astronomer with his own Wiki bio, therefore anything quoted from him was a legitimate reference and not to be questioned.  Now, by your own admission, what Plait said is a garbage "fact", and seemingly you've known it all along.  If it was something "based on his own experience" (whatever that means), then it is simple hearsay and still not legitimate to represent it as fact.  Quoting somebody's opinion would be legitimate if data was ambiguous and many interpretations were possible, where experts were divided in their opinion, and where it is clear the person is giving an opinion.  But that's not the case here. It is a simple fact, based on actual scientific studies (not Plait's "own experience"), that Venus does NOT cause a majority of UFO sightings, not even close. That you would repeatedly insert a known false statement is plain dishonesty on your part and an obvious attempt to editorialize and debunk.   Really, anybody who would deliberately insert a false statement (not the first time you've done it either) should be banned from contributing to Wiki articles.  Stick to real facts please, not made-up ones. 66.117.135.19 17:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "[[Identified Flying Objects (IFOs)]]" a good idea? 

message: I am gathering stories for a project and want to know who's seen the supernatural any UFO, Ghost ect. ect. (I CAN HELP!)--Dr. Mahogany 16:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you a Robertson Panel psychiatrist ? If not, I'll relate some UFO experiences. While travelling the US as a prospector, people (polite) told me that IF there is any alien contact, they'll revolt, some, for religious reasons, some, out of revenge for being ridiculed as persuant to the Robertson Panel protocol. You imagine having a experience like that, only for someone to call you a liar, "insane", worse ? Martial Law 00:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any Abductions 

message: It would be useful to have inline cititions and footnotes about, for example, "The army of Alexander the Great in 329 BC saw "two silver shields" in the sky." That way the reader has a place to go to read the account. Tom Harrison Talk 17:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Robertson Panel
This should explain the ridicule, the "Giggle Factor". Martial Law 23:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ridicule explained, two words

message: When people see these things, they often fire on them. I have seen case after case concerning this matter. I am in a rural area of the U.S. and these people will shoot at anything that they believe is a threat to them. Why is it that people can't comprehend the fact that people in rural areas of the US and some other nations will shoot to kill anything they consider a threat ? I've came accross many a incident report in which people have actually shot at these things, with no effect. In one incident report, the military helicopters and some civilian helicopters had to be grounded because ranchers and farmers were shooting at"Black Helicopters", strange lights, saucers and the like while a animal mutilation incident was going on. Who wants to tell a ticked off rancher that lost a $500,000 stud horse or bull that they're "full of it", or a ticked off farmer that had his farm ruined by radiation the same thing ? Everytime a UFO incident is going on, the rural people, especially the ranchers and farmers either buy new weapons and/or fix and oil their old ones, get a lot of ammo and sit up waiting for something to come by, so they'll shoot at it, and/or shoot the skeptics that will accuse them of lying, worse. Too bad I can't state any of this, due to WP:NOR and/or WP:V. One guy I ran into in AR., stated that his uncle had fired on a UFO with a .410 or a 12 guage shotgun, using deer slugs, only the ship had a "deflector shield" up, so that the ammo could'nt harm the vessel. He said you could see where the ammo had hit the shields, but not the ship. Martial Law 03:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weapons Use...

message: According to this LINK, the Russians have opened a UFO School. What do you think of this development ? Dr Fil ? Anyone else ? Martial Law 19:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great site eh! Notice how they demonstrate how to take authentic photos of UFOs. Moriori 20:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seen that. The pix was a joke, the article is'nt. Martial Law 21:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The intent is to teach people what to do if they encounter a UFO and/or a alien, other than running off, shooting at it, etc., all the above in some cases. Martial Law 22:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd tell you what the "Etc." was, only that'll violate Wikipedia:Profanity if I did. Cheers. Martial Law 22:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Russians Open UFO School

message: Anyone here know much about Billy Meier?  The article right now is in need of balance and an attention to presentation.  I do not know much about the subject and don't personally want to spend much time on it, but it is not a good representative of Wikipedia at present.  I hope someone will be interested in giving it some attention.  Phiwum 07:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Billy Meier article needs some attention! 

message: Culled from the article:
:Polling of American Astronomical Society (AAS) colleagues by astrophysicist Peter Sturrock in 1975 found strong interest in investigating the subject.  A solid majority (53%) felt the subject deserving of further scientific study; only a small minority (20%) clearly opposed such study.  Antagonism to studying UFOs was found to correlate directly with ignorance of the subject matter.  Over 80% of respondents expressed a willingness to contribute to the resolution of the UFO problem. However, only 10% thought the solution would be extraterrestrial. 5% reported UFO sightings.   survey results  Sturrock also assembled his own scientific panel in 1998 for an independent review of the evidence. The panel concluded the physical evidence linked to some sightings deserved additional scientific study
:Similarly, the UFO subcomittee of the AIAA in 1970 deemed the subject definitely worthy of further scientific study after reviewing the 1969 Condon Report and its large percentage of unknowns (thus directly contradicting Edward Condon's conclusions).  Sturrock also surveyed the AIAA in 1973 and found a higher level of skepticism toward the subject than in his 1975 AAS survey.  Nonetheless, as in the AAS survey, 5% of members reported UFO sightings.
:Other surveys reporting keen interest among scientists were published by Industrial Research and Development magazine, who surveyed their 100,000 member readership in 1971 and 1979 (more than half of whom held post-graduate degrees).  In the 1971 survey, 54% thought UFOs definitely or probably existed, vs. 31% who disagreed.  32% thought they came from space. 8% reported a UFO sighting while 14% reported "perhaps."  76% thought the government was concealing evidence but 49% still favored further government research.  In the 1979 survey, 61% now felt UFOs definitely or probably existed; 28% disagreed.  8% said they had a UFO sighting; 10% answered "perhaps".  51% favored further government research.  
These paragraphs need to be cleaned up before they are presented in this encyclopedia. Here are the reasons:
#The Sturrock poll was informal and not well-administered. The results are reported on the website article but the poll's format cannot be verified nor are the conclusions that this article came to neutral interpretations even given the controversial nature of the poll. In particular, claims such as "80% of respondents expressed a willingness to contribute to the resolution of the UFO problem" assumes a few things that are very problematic: 1) that everyone admits there is a "UFO problem", 2) that everything but the most negative of responses indicates a "willingness", 3) that a "contribution to the resolution..." is somehow an endorsement of UFOlogy by professional astronomers, 4) the poll was issued way to far in the past when the "controversy" was of a different character than today. We need to be up-to-date if we are truly going to cite the opinions of current scientists. Obviously, these three problems need to be addressed before reporting on the Sturrock poll can be included neutrally in the article. 
#The 1998 panel might be relevant to the article, but it is irrelevant to the question of whether scientists/astronomers perceive a "UFO problem" beyond the problem that there are various weirdos who think "the truth is out there".
#A 1970 report of the AIAA hardly reports on the nature of the controversy accurately in 2006. The conclusions drawn from the report are not neutral: informal panel reviews express neither endorsement nor rejection of a subject -- so this is irrelevant and the commentary written about it is far from NPOV
#Sturrock's poll of AIAA is also rightly excluded until the points about the AAS poll are addressed similarly for this organization.
#A magazine poll is not indicative of the opinions of the scientific community, in particular, it's hard to know what the background of the readers who responded to the poll were. Maybe scientists were less likely to respond than laymen readers. We don't know, because the information isn't found in the source. Thus, this poll is rightly excluded until better context/data can be provided.
Until these points are addressed, these paragraphs need to be removed from the article.
I should point out that survey research is a professional field. We should not be cavalier in our reporting of polls, especially when they are done by nonprofessionals and suffer shoddy design (such as those done by Sturrock or the magazine). 
Thanks
--ScienceApologist 19:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources about scientists who "believe in" UFOs

message: There is a huge amount of this article that would be better off merged into the Ufology section. (or, alternatively, Ufology article should be merged here.)  As it is now there is quite a bit of duplication.  I'd do it myself, but merging looks like it's going to be a huge mess. Does anyone have the time to take this task on? ---J.Smith 18:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ufology 

message: The documentary channels have ran programming in which not only military planes have been chasing UFOs, they have shot some down, and the UFOs have also shot down some of the military planes. Martial Law 20:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Military Intercepts

message: These two links state this matter. They are Astronauts FORBIDDEN to report UFOs and the source link sent to Jeff Rense is (link sent to Jeff Rense ) which states that Astronauts have been and are still forbidden to report UFOs, aliens. Martial Law 20:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Astronauts FORBIDDEN to report UFOs, aliens

message: The newspaper doing this is the American Chronicle. since this is a two part article, two links are presented. 
*UFO Ignorance:Part One
* UFO Ignorance: Part two  Martial Law 00:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone keep a eye on this newspaper ? Martial Law 05:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Use http://www.americanchronicle.com/notices/search.asp and search for "UFO". 121 links as of this date. -72.74.23.108 22:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mainstream Newspaper reports UFO Ignorance - w/o the Giggle Factor

message: UFO Betwix & Between
::::Can someone keep a eye on this newspaper ? Martial Law 05:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Use http://www.americanchronicle.com/notices/search.asp and search for "UFO". 121 links as of this date. -72.74.23.108 22:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mainstream newspaper still running UFO material

message: First and foremost, I am NOT stepping on anyone's toes, etc. at all.
::::While I was travelling "Out West", really all over the US, I was told in no uncertain terma that IF there is alien contact, the whole planet will erupt into rebellion for these reasons:
::::# alien contact itself.
::::# religious reasons, such as "Satan" is here to kill us all, and the planetary govt.s are working for this monster.
::::# vengeance for being ridiculed as persuant to the Robertson Panel, Project Grudge, related protocol. these protocol are still followed, such as calling witnesses 
::::delusional,declaring people  AS true believer syndrome cases, paranoid,"skitzoid" and the like, such as being drunk, on drugs, worse. I have ran into ex-military personnel who worked with material that could get them killed, same with police in some places, like Phoenix, Arizona and Gulf Breeze, Florida. The military has The Uniform Code of Justice to keep soldiers in line, along with the famous Section 8 protocol, while civilians get ridiculed, abused, threatened, even sent to a nut house,  loony bin to, as one ex-officer had stated, "to shut them the fucking hell up - or else." I've met a guy near Deming, NM. long ago who said that that CISCOP, and related organizations were govt. ( Mainly CIA ) fronts set up to make sure that the civilians remained compliant and controllable. Martial Law 09:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rebellion

message: I think this whole section should be deleted from the article, for the following reasons:
It starts out with a quote with astronomer P. Plait saying that he hasn't personally heard from any astronomers who have seen something they couldn't identify. This is obviously a non-scientific statement with no particular value. Then it goes on to name some astronomers, or users of astronomical instruments, who have reported UFOs, demonstrating that Plait's obviously meaningless observation is meaningless. Then it goes on to list... something. A random collection of studies, or alleged studies, or investigations of studies, or statements by organizations or individuals, or alleged statements my organizations or individuals, in which the consensus conclusion, or the conclusion of a minority, or the alleged conclusion of one or more persons, is that there is or may be some credence to the ET hypothesis.
Note that I'm not objecting to this section because it's too pro-ETH. I object to it because it is utterly disorganized, makes no meaningful statement, and adds a lot of worthless bulk to an already over-long article. Comments? KarlBunker 16:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the article, List of major UFO sightings, there are references of astronomers reporting UFOs. The reason a astronomer will not report a UFO is that his/her career will suddenly take a header into the proverbial toilet, "go down the drain", go into the tank, down the crapper, end their careers, that sort of thing, all due to certain protocol forbidding astronomers from reporting UFOs. I have found a article in which astronauts are actually forbidden from reporting UFOs. Its ABOVE this discussion. You report one and see what happens to YOU. Martial Law 20:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I might suggest that we quote some introductory astronomy texts on the subject rather than referring to astronomers in particular. The current edition of the Cosmic Perspective has some prose on the opinions of the astronomical community on UFOs. They are, as you might imagine, fairly critical of the ETH. --ScienceApologist 21:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "Astronomers and other scientists" 

message: It has often amazed me to see remarkably balanced and well-written articles in Wikipedia on controversial topics. Even when there are clearly "warring parties" on the part of editors to the article, the evidence of the conflict is only in the discussion page, not in the article itself. This article is largely an exception to that. The article consists largely of obvious instances of editors saying "oh yeah?!" "oh yeah?!" back and forth at each other. The section about astronomers is the worst example of that. This is kind of funny, because astronomers really don't have anything to do with UFOs. Astronomical instruments aren't designed for, and aren't much good at, looking at or looking for UFOs. Astronomers aren't trained in identifying flying objects or aerial phenomenon that might look like flying objects. The only justification for mentioning astronomers at all in this article is that some astronomers have done work in SETI, or have speculated about ETI, and that relates (vaguely) to the ET hypothesis of UFOs. I'm going to delete that section. If anyone objects, please state your reasons here. KarlBunker 00:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Astronomers..." section and general comment on this article

message: "Alleged disinterest on the part of the scientific community is an equally unimpressive claim. Scientists are constantly competing with one another to be the first with a great discovery, and clear evidence of alien visitors would certainly rank high on the all-time list. Countless researchers woudl work evening and weekends, without pay, if they could make such a discovery. The fact that few scientists are engaged in such study reflects not a lack of interest, but a lack of evidence worthy of study."
"Of course, absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. Most scientists are open to the possibility that we might someday find evidence of alien visits, and many would welcome aliens with open arms. So far, however, we have no hard evidence to support the belief that aliens are already here."
I would point out that this is from one of the most common introductory astronomy texts for non-science majors used in the country. Certainly a verifiable and useful source of information!
--ScienceApologist 21:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, verification is a well-understood concept here at Wikipedia. You should read this and learn it well, because you are not correct in your formulation. --ScienceApologist 02:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Verification" does not mean trying to pass off some cited skeptics mere blog anecdotal opinion as fact, which is what you and Bubba73 seem to think it means. What you are really doing is trying to pervert the Wikipedia "Verifiability, not truth" policy in order to editorialize.  It would probably be perfectly all right to say, "Many UFO skeptics often claim that astronomers never see UFOs and they should.  Examples are Joe Schmoe and Phil Plait (citation)."  That clearly indicates this is just an opinion.  But instead the way it was written was "Phil Plait says he has never heard a UFO report from an amateur astronomer, therefore they never see UFOs when they should be seeing them, therefore there is nothing to UFOs," which is opinion masquerading as a fact being used to insert a very obvious slanted skeptical POV into the article.  If you would bother to read the actual "verification" policy, you will see that Wikipedia also indicates that something like Plait's blog does not count as a valid source.  If Plait had published an actual scientific study, say doing an actual poll of a thousand amateur astronomers and getting nary a UFO report from any of them, then that would be different.  There would be some valid basis for Plait's comment.  But Plait mouthing off in his "Bad Astronomy" blog just like a lot of other Net bloggers does not constitute a valid source.  You would have to be pretty dense or dishonest to claim otherwise.  Dr Fil 23:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From Bennet et al. Cosmic Perspective

message: The only way that the Skeptics (in general) will believe anyone, the govt suppression protocol, such as the Robertson Panel, Project Grudge, related protocol is to be cancelled is that someone/something finds us as Ronald Reagan has stated in one of his speeches.
When that happens is when the planet erupts in planetwide rebellion. See Re.:Rebellion above. I am NOT accusing,etc. anyone at all, only stating what may happen, should there be alien contact, no more, no less. Martial Law 23:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Only way....

message: :Adamski was widely dismissed as a crackpot
Do you happen to have a source for that comment?  Thanks, ---J.Smith 20:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Crackpot" 

message: I must protest the continued deletion by KarlBunker of the 1886 Scientific American Venezuelan report of physiological injury.  This case has been cited for months without problem.  The reasons given for suddenly deleting it continue to seem arbitrary to me.  Saying the case is too old to be of value is nonsense.  No scholar of any subject automatically rejects old items as being useless just because they are old.  How else are you supposed to gain a historical perspective if you arbitrarily throw out everything historical?  The very fact that it is old is precisely why it is valuable in order to provide context.  One argument often used by skeptics is that UFO reports are all contemporary and the result of cultural and media influences.  Yet here is an example of something reported that sounds exactly like a modern UFO close encounters report, including the oft-reported bright lights and humming, long before anybody ever heard of any such things. But more remarkably, to my thinking, is the reported physiological symptoms of skin burns, lesions, and hair loss that sound exactly like symptoms of radiation poisoning, most likely exposure to intense microwave radiation.  Yet this is at least 50 years before anything was known about such things.  How could the letter writer be so prescient as to fake all these details? This is a strong argument against the letter being some form of hoax.
The argument that Scientific American back then wasn't a respected magazine is an extremely weak one.  Even if one accepts this, it's beside the poiint.  The citation is perfectly valid (I've looked up the item myself at the library) and the letter stands on its own merits because of all the included details that would have been almost impossible to fake at the time.  Would you automatically reject 19th century reports of sizzling meteor sounds as being worthless just because they were reported in an old newspaper instead of Science magazine?
Finally the evidence for UFOs is in examination of case reports, particularly noteworthy ones.  Let the reader decide whether the cases cited are worthwhile evidence or not.  Trying to eliminate references to such important cases is cutting the meat out of the article while leaving in a lot of meaningless fat that provides the reader no useful information.  E.g., the paragraph at the top of the section about the evidence being hoaxes, explainable, or unidentified but ambiguous is a sweeping generalization that doesn't tell the reader anything of substance about physical evidence cases (the topic of the section) and is also repeated elsewhere in the article in various ways such as in "Explanations and Opinions" and "Identified Flying Objects."  How many times is it necessary for the same point to be made?  If you are concerned about unnecessary repetition and article length, why not cut that paragraph out?  It adds nothing to the article that isn't already there and wouldn't be missed in the slightest.Dr Fil 20:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1886 Scientific American physiological case 

message: That section needs to be removed from this article.  It is massively redundant to the ufology article.  If no one else wants to volunteer to do it, I'll do it sometime this weekend. ---J.S (t|c) 16:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a good idea.  The material on UFO organizations isn't totally redundant, so it should be assimilated into the material in the Ufology article instead of just deleted.  Links to the Ufology article should of course be included in the Ufology subsection.  I could take care of this.  Dr Fil 20:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm the org. list can probably moved into the list of ufologists.  Or it's own list perhaps?  ---J.S (t|c) 20:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ufology section 

message: The "totally disputed" tag has been on this page since the beginning of time. For a popular topic such as UFO's, one would think it would be cleared up by now. I've read through all the arguing/BS/etc. When is this going to finally be settled???? --JOK3R 19:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be a while. There are a lot of issues even with the first paragraph, let alone the rest of the article. If you want to help NPOV and verify points along the way, please do. --ScienceApologist 20:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking at the page and viewing past history, I really wouldn't know where to begin without pissing someone off. :( --JOK3R 20:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about reading the article and comprising a list of what you might think is wrong with it.  3rd party opinions are always useful. ---J.S (t|c) 21:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well after reading through the archives, the talk page here, and the article itself, it is very apparant here there are 2 groups going back and forth: "Believers" and "non-believers". A big problem I see just by looking at the page history is controversial edits with zero explanation. How can we really solve that problem, for one? I'm going to go through the article myself pretty heavily tonight and see if some NPOV issues can be worked out that haven't been yet. Out of all the articles on Wikipedia, I'd really like to see this one be a featured one at some point. --JOK3R 18:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is taking so long? 

message: 3 Research 
:3.1 UFO categorization 
::3.1.1 Hynek system 
::3.1.2 Vallee System 
:3.2 Physical evidence 
::3.2.1 Notable UFO-related sightings and events 
:3.3 Explanations and Opinions 
::3.3.1 Popular ideas for explaining UFOs 
::3.3.2 Identified flying objects (IFOs) 
::3.3.3 Hoaxes 
::3.3.4 Psychology 
:3.4 Conspiracy theories 
::3.4.1 Allegations of evidence suppression 
4 Ufology - people and organizations 
:4.1 Organizations: U.S. 
I'll be doing the pruning sometime tonight.  Relevant info well be merged into the Ufology article, where it truly belongs (except for section 4, that will go to the list of ufologists). If anyone has any problem with this. Let me know and we can talk about it. ---J.S (t|c) 21:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. At first my reaction to this was "Wha? Wouldn't that reduce this article to nothing but some history and popular culture?" On second thought, I'm thinking that would be a good idea. I've looked briefly at the "Ufology" article, and it seems to be much better, and less disputed than this one. And there are also an existing article "List of major UFO sightings", List of major UFO movies/tv shows, etc., etc. Maybe the best role for this article would be for it to be largely a set of links to other articles. If you do do all that trimming, there's definitely material that should be moved to Ufology, IMO, such as the categorization systems. KarlBunker 15:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I was thinking. UFOlogy should be the big article... ---J.S (t|c) 16:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a lot of problems with the proposed deletions.  We've gone through this before in the name of "chickfat" elimination.  I don't see how you can have an article about UFOs and not keep such things as studies, descriptions, classifications, evidence (including physical evidence), and proposed explanations in the article.  What is being proposed is cutting much of the substance out of the article.  The Ufology article is already a mess, and trying to merge some of this into it will make it an even bigger mess.Dr Fil 00:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not a "deletion".  I'm not eliminating anything.  What I am doing is fixing a HUGE redundancy.  Either the Ufology article needs to go or the redundant data needs to be pruned.  This kind of redundancy is never positive. ---J.S (t|c) 20:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the following: 

message: I've tried to look it up in Wikionary to no avail... perhaps it is too archaic/technical of a term? Can we find simpler wording, for simple folks like me? ---J.S (t|c) 20:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Impermanent" has NEVER been a defining characteristic of UFOs, no matter who has studied the phenomenon during the last 60 years.  Now ScienceApologist personally decides that "impermanant" is a defining characteristic of UFOs.  What is this based on other than his own personal biases and obvious ignorance of the subject matter?  I would like to see a genuine reference to a study that shows that UFOs have less "permanence" than prosaic identified phenomena such as meteors or jet planes flying overhead.  (You know, the "verifiability" thing.)  You can't find such a study because it doesn't exist.  In fact, UFOs are no more "impermanent" than the things that are considered to be identified.  When Battelle Memorial Institute scientists investigated duration of sightings in the 1950s for the USAF (3200 cases), they found that, if anything, unidentified sightings tended to have slightly longer durations than the identifieds.  This was a highly statistically signficant finding.  There are sightings that go on for hours, even days, sometimes.  No way should "impermance" or any similar word be part of the UFO definition. Dr Fil 04:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word "impermanent" 

message: The tag is still in place on the article because there is still a lot of work to be done to bring it to a neutral level and to verify information. In particular, much of the prose on modern UFO research needs to be balanced with the skeptical perspective. Until we finish this task, it is best to leave the tag in place. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr. Hank Wesselman, (author of Spiritwalker etc) for example, believes that UFOs and/or aliens are spiritual beings and not physical entities.  Don't forget, christianity isn't the only religious perspective. ---J.S (t|c) 22:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the more fringe explanations for UFOs are already included and linked to in "Popular ideas for explaining UFOs."  I don't see why every far-out "explanation" in existence needs to be mentioned or discussed, else we end up with truly screwball theories like the "Hollow Earth theory" or Nazi flying saucer bases in Antarctica (no kidding!)--Dr Fil 19:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag still in place