Talk:Flying saucer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Paranormal (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Former good article nominee Flying saucer was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
September 25, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed

Parallel universes[edit]

One possible explanation of flying saucers is based on the theory of parallel universes. As these parallel universes fold and twist in their higher dimension, occasionally they come in contact with one another. Using a two-dimensional analogy, imagine bedsheets hanging side by side on a clothes line, wafting in the breeze. The two-dimensional creatures that inhabit this two-dimensional bedsheet world are constrained by some force that prevents them from moving into the third dimension. When two bedsheets come in contact, this constraining force causes the point of contact to assume a minimal surface two-dimensional object, a circle. The dimension-constraining forces interact, causing an emission of light. The intersection could effect bizarre motion - sudden acceleration, abrupt turns, and suddenly disappear as the two bedsheets separate. The behavior of this "object" would be unexplainable by the laws of physics as understood by the two-dimensional beings.

Moving up to three-dimensional universes, when two come in contact, the region of contact again assumes a minimal surface area object, a sphere or ellipsoid of revolution. The dimension-constraining forces cause the emission of light around its perimeter. Bizarre motions are evidenced by the object of intersection, and it suddenly disappears as the two universes separate their point of conjunction.

This theory raises many questions. Is it possible, for example, for the inhabitants of a universe to force a wrinkle in their universe such that it intentionally comes in contact with a parallel universe? Could they then use this intersection to travel from their universe to the adjoining one? What if the intersection of two universes takes place at a location in one of the universes at the center of a star? There would likely be a sudden infusion of star-interior matter flowing into the other universe.

Some may criticize this hypothesis as attributing one unexplained phenomenon to yet another, the theory of higher dimensionality and parallel universes. However, many scientists believe that physical dimensions higher than three could explain numerous phenomena we observe in our universe.

Um. What the hell? This whole thing stinks of crackpottery -- I can't find a decent reference of any kind for the theory, which suggests that it's 12.253.162.61's own. Moved here for now; please discuss. --Mirv 07:34, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Opposing points of view[edit]

Regarding edits of 3/21/04, prior version almost completely lacked balance. NPOV requires acknowledging at very least the existence of responsible opposing points of view. I had the arbitrary fortune of directly observing three distinct glowing UFO craft in broad daylight for approximately 15 seconds flying in the "impossible" zigzag pattern before flying directly into a cloud and illuminating the vapor as they passed into it. This phenomenon is real and non-imaginary, and deserves at minimum the kind of mention the previous draft denied it. CSICOP does good work much of the time, but it also proceeds, imho, from sometimes dogmatic preassumptions. Timothy Good's book Above Top Secret is the kind of credible research that provides the evidence for those willing to examine it, and the link http://www.ufoevidence.org provides intelligent discussion of some of the most common skeptical objections. The main point is, this edit acknowledges the existence of both perspectives rather than one only. Chris Rodgers 03:39, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Merge to UFO?[edit]

Is there any convincing reason this article shouldn't be merged with unidentified flying object? - David Gerard 12:23, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's been over a week and no-one seems to care. So I'm merging - David Gerard 11:35, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Actually, there is: not all saucers are UFOs - IE: those in popular movies, US & Canadian designs - PFS 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Flying saucers out of style?[edit]

I think I take issue with the assertion that black triangles have supplanted flying saucers in sightings, and this contention does not seem to be particularly supported by the source provided. While certainly the absolute numbers of flying saucer sightings have declined, and flying saucers than less credibility than they had previously in the "UFO community", it seems to me that the the man-in-the-street's conception of a UFO is probably still a flying saucer (few have probably even heard of "black triangles"), and it's likely that these still form the greater part of sightings. So we need real numbers, and if we don't have real numbers either way, then this unsupported statement should I think be removed.--Pharos 18:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, by studying the raw reports available from UFO collecting organizations one would notice that the saucer reports are still present and seem to be statistically more prevalent than other shapes (although the most common UFO reports are just lights)

GA Review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Overall, this is a rare example of a really good short article on a subject - there can be (and were/are) volumes written on the subject, but this article provides a good, succinct summary of all the important aspects of flying saucers. That said, if editors would like to advance it to the FA level, it would need to be expanded with more in-depth information, which is basically what the difference between GA and FA is all about.

As you can see, however, I still cannot promote this article because of some reservations I have. I hope the article's editorial team will keep active in helping improve the article, and within the week's time I can assign it the "on hold" status, all the issues will be dealt with and I will be able to promote it duly.

  1. While I can only appreciate the good referencing throughout the article, source #1 does not seem particularly reliable or appropriate to me. It appears to be somebody's personal essay on a personal website. It is also used to substantiate potentially contentious statements in the article. I would try to find a better source for those, perhaps removing some.
  2. Reference #2 does not directly state what is being attributed to it in the last part of the lead section. It also doesn't cover the vehicles in "Earth-based examples".
  3. Reference #3 is a perhaps good summary of the subject, but I believe the author himself used some original sources - I think for a keen ufologist, locating them wouldn't be too hard.
  4. Reference #5 - what about baloons?
  5. The first paragraph of "flying source in culture" curiously goes without a single reference. It also contains statements likely to be challenged, so good, reliable references seem necessary.
  6. Reference #8 doesn't even mention Googie style - I believe the author of this article went one step to far in interpreting the meaning of the source.
  7. Mentioning a particular movie and game in the last sentence seems going a bit into less relevant detail to me (unless the sentence would be phrased to highlight those as EXAMPLES, and the sources would discuss the use of the motiff in more recent cultural context, giving those examples.

Looking forward to being able to promote the article, PrinceGloria 13:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. One last thing - a pet peeve of mine is placement of navigational templates at the end of article that do not contain a link to the article itself. I think the template still has room for more links, which could broaden its utility.

Whoops, seems like I forgot about the deadline... Not much activity here anyway, so I guess that's it for now. In case anybody would feel like working on the article further, please do mind the review above - once all reservations will be offset, the article should clear GAC with flyijng colours! Happy editing, PrinceGloria 15:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


Well the concept of the black triangles theroy could very much be the military's Steath Bomber """"

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Anteriority debate[edit]

There have been some heated debates between skeptics and non-skeptics to acertain wether saucers in science-fiction productions (litterature or comics) were anterior to saucer sighting reports or the opposite. The purpose of this debate was to try and dismiss the saucer sighting as fabricated after science fiction material.
It would be interesting to include some of this debate on the main page, and maybe to try and track some of the earliest examples of both science-fiction saucers and real saucer reports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.8.17.235 (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Something I noticed[edit]

I noticed that the pic of a UFO on the page used to be captioned An alledged UFO over Passaic, New Jersey. Now it says "An alledged UFO over Passoria, New Jersey". Whats up with that?--Metalhead94 (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Problematic references[edit]

I deleted two new paragraphs about Henri Coanda's flying saucer designs for four reasons: 1) the text was very poorly written, 2) the text was too much about Coanda and not enough about flying saucers in general, 3) parts of the text are wrong, and 4) the references are problematic. Here are the refs:

The allstar.fiu.edu site is copyrighted, yet a quote was taken from that site. The video.google.com link is most likely a copyrighted video. The JPG images do not prove anything. The rexresearch.com link includes a cite to an old version of the Wikipedia article about the Coanda effect, and the text it supposedly supports fails to discuss the relevance the patent on flying saucers.

What's wrong in the text is that Coanda is known to have researched an air-jet-powered snow sled ambulance for the German Army during WWII, not some rumored secret weapon. The 1910 aircraft by Coanda is not connected to flying saucers in any way. What's not said about Coanda in this chunk of text is that he never produced a working flying saucer.

The IP addresses involved in this are 79.11x from Brasov, Romania, and they include of a group of 1024 IP addresses that were blocked en masse on 10 October 2010 for edit warring on Coanda-related articles. The two-month block expired 10 December and the IP returned injecting the same material. These references, especially the awful JPG image URLs, have been the subject of much edit warring at the article about Henri Coandă since July 2010: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] and many more. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the copyright violations immediately. The rest needs to go, too. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • oh boy, not you again. I understand you are susppended from time to time, because your permanently weird and though head implications in several articles across wikipedia. Yet you still done them, un dettered. The quote is a quote of Coanda, is not copyrighted, i can post it from lots of romanian sources, but i chose to point out an english language too. If you think that is a copyright problems, why dont you ask the author of that article about it? It is clearly pointed out that you can take anything from there, with permission. Same for the Google video, which is clearly not a problem. Rest of your concerns is just spam, part of your weird and silly camapign against Henri Coanda. Get a life, get a girlfriend, it will make you some good, trust me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.248.243 (talk) 09:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
In an effort to resolve this edit war, I have shortened and rewritten the piece into English. I haven't looked at the verifiablitiy or accuracy of the links, which may need further clarification. It is probably more appropriate to keep the other information in the Henri Coanda article. Regards Lynbarn (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd edited the article based upon what the sources do say. They don't support the first patent on a flying saucer.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The Allstar FIU article says at the top of it: "Please let me remind all of you--this material is copyrighted." What can be copyrighted is any translation into English of a Romanian or French source. The quote from Coanda speaking at a Romanian Academy symposium is such a quote, the English translation possibly copyrighted. I am removing that quote until such a time as its copyright status is clearly demonstrated to be one of permissible use. Binksternet (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The Australian PDF from New Fluid Technology called "Henri Coanda: The Facts" [11] is unverifiable as a reference because it has no author. Its photographs are interesting but it has problems with inaccuracy in its text, for instance, the 1911 "stamp" is said to be designed by Coanda but it is clearly a reworking of the 1910 brochure cover art by Charles Vernau of Paris; and the PDF asserts that the 1910 aircraft is "unquestionably the worlds first jet propelled airplane" when major questions have been raised about that, by notable mainstream historians. I assume the PDF author to be Terry Day, Technical Director of New Fluid Technology in Queensland, but this is not made clear. Anyway, this PDF is one I feel can be used as an external link or as a source for photographic evidence, but one in which the text analysis is unverifiable. Binksternet (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Catchword[edit]

It seems to me that one might find a more earnest expression for the subject of the article. Flying saucer is clearly humorous, but in the article, there is not referred to this fact in the section of the lead that deals with the origin of the term.

Nevertheless, there is said:

"Both the terms flying saucer and flying disc were used commonly and interchangeably in the media until the early 1950s."

Would it, therefore, not be useful to move the article to Flying disc? For me, this catchword would appear much more encyclopedic. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I only now realize that Flying disc is already used for something absolutely different. But, nevertheless: it does not make a good impression to have an article with an obviously humorous catchword, but without any remark on the fact that, and in how far, the catchword is a humorous one. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Translation in broken English[edit]

Somebody who knows both languages perfectly should improve the English translation of text (1) in (2).

This is what Coanda said, speaking in Romanian:

(1)„Avioanele pe care le avem astăzi nu sunt decât perfecţionarea avioanelor de jucărie pe care le fac copiii din hârtie. Părerea mea este că ar trebui să găsim o maşină de zbor complet diferită, bazată pe alte principii ale zborului. Avionul viitorului va decola vertical, va zbura ca oricare altul şi va ateriza tot vertical. Ideea mi-a venit de la puterea uriasa a cicloanelor”.

Broken English translation: "At a Symposionum organized by the Romanian Academy in 1967 Coanda said:

(2)"These airplanes we have today are no more than a perfection of a toy made of paper children use to play with. My opinion is we should search for a completely different flying machine, based on other flying principles. I consider the aircraft of the future, that which will take off vertically, fly as usual and land vertically. This flying machine should have no parts in movement. The idea came from the huge power of the cyclons" [sic][13]". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.23 (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

N.F.O.[edit]

I propose that every reference to "unidentified flying object" or "UFO" be changed to Nazi flying object and NFO. There is no way a flying "object" can be considered unidentified if they are in fact Nazi. -- bigrealjay482 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.118.157 (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

DON'T MERGE DON'T MERGE because flying saucers are also NASA spacecraft as of now[edit]

[http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/science/20140808/nasas-flying-saucer-mars-test-called-success-despite-torn-chute]

[https://www.google.com/search?q=saucer+test+success]

User:Pedant 76.90.171.224 (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)