Talk:Unidentified flying object

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

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

Decline

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

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

This is Lie

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

Foo Fighter

No explanation as to why it belongs under Extraterrestrial Hypothesis. See Foo fighter; no connection to ETH. Does not belong in that place. Kortoso (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2014

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

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

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

Suggestions for improvement

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

The definition of UFO:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No….

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

Then...

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

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

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

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

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

would anyone like to see it?

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

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

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