Talk:Ufology

old talk

Need some help here. - Sigg3.net 19:42, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What sort? People will help if they can Moriori 21:54, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

This is a great field. Going to need some help. This sentence is wrong though: especially claims that some UFOs are extraterrestrial vehicles manned by aliens, since UFO Norge are trying to get international approval as "real scientists" (if such things should exist), so they don't jump to any conclusions. Most of the cases they've handled (something that is incredibly normal) are observations of the moving moon when driving a car... But they've got observations of "saucers" that were confirmed by military radars as well. I changed especially to also. Thanks anyway. - Sigg3.net 23:10, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Changed no physical evidence to any conclusive evidence, since physical evidence HAS been found and published. - Sigg3.net 23:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'll try to make it clearer on the page. There IS evidence for UFOs, including film which I have seen, for flying objects that were and are unidentified. But, no-one has EVER produced physical evidence of any UFO of extraterrestrial origin. ( I'm talking physical evidence, not claims. If you think otherwise, then list the urls here please). If someone ever does, then Wikipedia will need a new page headed "ETs" {Extraterrestrial Vehicles, fancy that), because, being identified, they could no longer be UFOs. Moriori 00:02, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

I think you miss the point. Not all ufology are concentrated on ET's. UFO Norge has made research on magnetic disturbances etc. (See "The Hessdal Project"). But there are way too many loonies out there too... - Sigg3.net

No, I don't miss the point at all. I know ufology should not exclusively concentrate on ETs but the perception of the pubic is that it does. The problem is that if several people independently report a spectacular UFO sighting, the media will get some UFO proponent on camera who will say aha, it's a flying saucer with little green men from outer space. They won't get someone from CSICOP or UFO Norge who would say, aha, here we have reliable reports of a flying object which is unidentified, so we will try to find an explantion for it. Even if they did find an explanation, it would be a non story so it wouldn't get publicity, and there would be those who continued to tout it as ET. Moriori 23:17, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

You're quite right about that, but I don't see why this should change the article. When most people hear about astrology they think about witches with crystalballs, but this is also considered science (to a degree). - Sigg3.net 23:35, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Is there any good reason this article shouldn't become a section of UFO? - David Gerard 11:55, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

A lot could be said about the UFO subculture which could fall under Ufology... Dysprosia 11:56, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's the thing - they're not really separate subjects. A lot of the stuff and links in UFO are about the subculture. And is "ufology" a science, the UFO subculture or what? I'm strongly tempted to merge real soon - David Gerard 12:22, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

No, no, no and no. Have a look at UFO Norge's webpage, for instance. UFO-NORWAY is open to any and all hypothesis and theories which may represent possible solutions to the UFO enigma, and will not attribute unidentified reports to any particular theory. They're really trying to open the scientific society to the fact that UFOs are not a product of (crazy) peoples imagination, but measurable on radiation-instruments and viewable on radar, for instance. So, placing them under UFO subculture is wrong, hence Ufology must stand as an article of its own. - Sigg3.net 08:59, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In that case please separate them out a lot better. It's not in the least clear at the moment. - David Gerard 13:10, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. - Sigg3.net 13:54, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Isn't UFO an acronym for Unidentified Flying Object? Then why is this page advocating the word {You-eff-oh-olo-jist}? Should this article merge into maybe Xenology, which is currently a stub?

Help

Hi guys. I could use some help with this: The Disclosure Project NPC Conference--Striver 14:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

cats?

Why can't Ufology be in Category:Pseudoscience? ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because pseudoscience is conducted in the name of UFOlogy, doesn't mean UFOlogy is necessarily pseudoscience.

But it is though, I mean actual real science is based on fact and measurable evidence. There is no fact or measurable evidence for the existence of UFOs 82.46.47.172 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Any scientific investigation undertaken that can't be proven or disproven by the Scientific Method is usually classed as a Pseudoscience, there's not much that is measurable in regards to UFO's, so I guess it would be reasonable to call it that. --Opacic (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well for the above skeptics who don't read wiki pages:

"Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge." Well it passes all these requirements. It would help if some of you read up about pseudoscience pay attention to the word UNIDENTIFIED and how these reports come about!Vufors (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There are two main strands to whether Ufology is pseudoscience

1) It is logical to assume that "sentient life having evolved once in the universe" it will evolve elsewhere. The "issue" is whether such "sentients-not-from-Earth" would come here, and, if so, what they would do with the planet and its inhabitants.

2) There are many "strange phenomena" that are not explicable by the viewer/collective wisdom "in the skies" (intentionally ambiguous). A proportion can be resolved (ball lightning, sun dogs, and other atmospheric phenomena, military and other craft whose existence is not generally known), dirigibles seen at peculiar angles, and the descriptions of some phenomena will be in the language/symbology that the describer knows, and thus capable of later misinterpretation - Halley's Comet on the Bayeaux Tapestry etc.

Ufology is an attempt to interpret the "otherwise unexplained items" of (2) in terms of an extrapolation of (1) that cannot presently be justified; and, in the context of "ancient alien visitors" that persons of X thousand years ago were not as ingenious as we are (rather than having different priorities/timescales, not recording everything that they did). Jackiespeel (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge UFO categorization

• Keep I dont see why this needs to be done unless we are trying to save space (shrink article size) (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 13:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Popularity of UFOlogy?

Is it just me, or is UFOlogy considerably less popular in Western countries than it once was? When visiting a bookshop recently, I was struck by the fact that there were absolutely no UFO/alien books in the paranormal section at all, whereas there were countless books about ghosts, hauntings and the like. 217.155.20.163 12:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good thing. The fewer people that buy into this slop the better.

Agreed. --Opacic (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be inactual as of circa 2008 Apr, now UFOlogy is on advance, whether we like it or not. Said: Rursus ☻ 09:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Is it pronounced you-eff-ology or you-fology? 74.106.20.73 21:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we need a proper pronunciation on the article seeing as the name is derived from an acronym. RooZ 13:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

History of Ufology

This new article is unreferenced and poorly wikified, it may get deleted unless improved soon.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• New???? First edit/entry are listed as 2003 December 6. Vufors (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Nein! Look again. Twas created at the end of April 2008. And it is pretty crappy as pointed out above, but I doubt it will get deleted because it could be referenced, probably, unless you guys are insane about that, which, judging from the majority of the content around here, you aren't.208.82.225.232 (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not insane of course, it's just the world around us that doesn't understand our splendor! Said: Rursus ☻ 09:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Have another look! [[1]] Vufors (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Suspected hoax section

Some very small WP:fringe is trying to perpetuate the article Atmospheric beast, a concept seemingly invented by this WP:fringe, not by Sagan as alleged. The section Atmosphere beast hypothesis is a typical example of this atmospheric beast mad ramblings, possibly referring to unrelated articles of unreason. I'll take a look, and if it appears that Atmospheric beast is some kind of "WP:OR" of the hoax type, then it will be instantly killed, and the Sagan part moved to some scifi article to where that text belongs. Said: Rursus ☻ 09:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Do a search on Trever James Constable and critters. I'm surprised that's not in the Ab article. Doug Weller (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've tested googling "Ivan T. Sanderson" and "Atmospheric beast" and got 7 bummer hits, either "info" copied from "Wikipedia" and list of "fortean" creatures where Ivan T. Sanderson was mentioned, but not connected with "Atmospheric beast" see Talk:Ivan T. Sanderson on why the Atmospheric beast has nothing to do with him. I'll take a look at that "Trevor James Constable" or variants. Said: Rursus ☻ 20:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The following guys does not exist: Trevor James Constable, Trevor Constable, Trevor James, Trevor J. Constable on WP. The following combinations of "Atmospheric beast" with "Trevor something" gives 2 or fewer google hits, all copies or inspirations from WP: "Trevor James Constable": 2; "Trevor Constable": 1; "Trevor James": 2; "Trevor J. Constable": 2. The case for hoax strengthens. Said: Rursus ☻ 20:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The following link support the sections' claims: UFOs OVER BURLINGTON WISCONSIN, but there are no Atmospheric beasts, the article I'm explicitly trying to kill. However: the link is from 2005. I'm going to track whether that WP section in question was written near in time to 2005. An ufologist named Trevor James Constable existed. Said: Rursus ☻ 20:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The section looked like this in 12 May 2006:

Sky Critter Hypothesis

The theory of Trevor James Contable (a.k.a. Trevor James) speculated that UFO sightings involve the sighting of exotic unknown life otherwise known as Sky Critters or Rods.

I'll restore it accordingly, removing later added desinformation and false links. The connexions alleged in Atmospheric beast, an invented name, don't exist. For now, and more after I've hunted down the beast! Said: Rursus ☻ 20:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Done! Removed HOAX template, one source exist, however fringy. Said: Rursus ☻ 21:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So how about Atmospheric beast, AfD? Doug Weller (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A very misleading phrase

"Even UFO cases that are exposed as hoaxes, delusions or misidentifications may still be worthy of serious study from a psychosocial point of view" -- This phrase is very misleading because it implies that the object of psychosocial research should be the "UFO cases" instead of the crazy people who talk about them. 66.65.129.159 (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Aliens eating people

Who says that? http://www.maar.us and http://www.ufocasebook.com Re.: Search: Alien Races/ Alien Species, Re.: Reptoids, and Re.: Greys claim that these aliens are known to these researchers to consume humans, and may explain why some people "go missing", "disappear". These should be placed in the category "Hostile aliens" in this article. Powerzilla (talk) 02:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Only pointing out who claimed that aliens do eat people, nothing more, nothing less. Powerzilla (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Frederick C. Crews

If anyone is interested, Frederick C. Crews has published a series of reviews of books on ufos at The New York Review of Books - [2] not free unfortunately. There's also some back-and-forth that looks pretty juicy. [3]. I'm going to spam this to a couple other pages too. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Natural Explanation Found for UFOs

This site: [[4]] talks about a natural explanation found for UFOs.Agre22 (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)agre22

Bogus Debunking

I think this article should somehow mention that the countering/debunking/rationalising of UFO reports can be very bogus. I mean, regardless of the actual case, media or even official explanations stretching to ridiculous extremities, on par with the worst believer nonsense : several hundred mph moving phenomem labeled "lenticular could", dozens of witnesses relegated to "stains in front of the eye", daylight close observations assimilated to "Venus mistaken" etc. Seems to me noticeable enough to be mentioned, but I just toss the idea here and let others do the confirm/refute/source work. Oh, and good luck on maintaining Wikipedia standards on such a hot topic. --Musaran (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It's always interesting when speeds and distances are quoted for objects without any justification. Most people who think they've seen a UFO tend to misjudge both. There's no reason to believe the "measurements" they reported. By the way, Venus is bright enough to be seen in the daytime with the naked eye. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

POV

At present, this article is written in a tone and in a way that mainly gives credence to the "UFOs are real' viewpoint. Large sections, including the intro, seem to simply be trying to advocate for the legitimacy of this viewpoint or of UFOlogy in general. The mainstream scientific viewpoints are relegated to a relatively small section. A more balanced view should be given throughout, particularly in the intro. I am therefore adding the point-of-view template.Locke9k (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is a total mess and needs a serious rewrite. It should be about ufology itself, and not go into excruciating details on alleged UFO cases and ET theories. 80.221.43.22 (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to help. It's been a mess for a while. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to translate the far superior German-language article. 80.221.43.22 (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully the article is now slightly more readable 80.221.43.22 (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)