Talk:Ufology/Archive1

Stub
Is it still a stub? Proxima Centauri 10:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but what's with the "Government coverup etc" section? A bunch of wild assertions about what aliens could or would do - isn't that what this article is supposed to be criticising?   16:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this serious or woo?
I haven't got time to check out the Institute for the Study of Galactic Civilizations. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like nutty woo to me....


 * "The purpose of the Institute for the Study of Galactic Civilizations (ISGC) is to educate the public about Earth's galactic visitors, their culture, and their influence on humanity. Such influences include the areas of spirituality, religion, science, politics, government, war, and health. The Institute will also raise awareness about the galactic message regarding an increase in human consciousness and potential dimension shift."


 * 21:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How th Build your own Flying Saucer Is this science or pseudoscience?  I'm not an engineer and can't assess the early part. Proxima Centauri (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They're fucking nuts. 03:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone want to laugh at check out, Rays of Truth? Proxima Centauri 11:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Alien biology
While it is perfectly reasonable to assume that because 'we sentient humans evolved on Earth, sentient life evolved elsewhere in the universe' (and simpler life-forms are likely to be more common), why is it assumed that 'sentient aliens' who develop practical interstellar travel will (a) come to Earth with malicious intent (when amoebas, trees and dinosaurs are unlikely to start resistance movements or have lawyers, and trade in high-value small value goods, intellectual property and 'ghastly TV series equivalents' is likely to be more profitable), (b) be reasonably humanoid (rather than centipedes, hive creatures, triffids, Daleks etc) and (c) capable of surviving longterm in an Earthlike environment without any apparent negative effects? Jackiespeel (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * answers to your questions

1.) Why would they come to earth with malicious intent? The same reason the US, UK, France, Spain etc came to the new world with malicious intent. Recources, slaves, minerals, etc

2.) Why would they be reasonably huminoid? The human form (bipedal, cranium size, etc) has been pretty effective for homo sapiens and other primates. Why not extra terrestrials. When we are talking about the billions of planets that could/may/do support life in the universe, it is plausible that at least one of two may have evolved life similar to human beings

3.) Capable of surviving earthlike enviroments with no negative effects? no one says they do. Close encounters of the third kinda rarley last more than a few minutes, and if what is seen are indeed aliens with technology to cross interstellar distances it is not infessible they could find away to survive in a hostile enviroment. Humans do it all the time. Hell i did it two weeks ago in boston harbour. Also, carbon based life seems to be the most likely form of life in the universe. is it so hard to believe an alien planet could also have an atmosphere of oxygen mixed with an inert gass at a level of 10 to 20 psi?--BenB (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 2. The only compelling similarity I could justify is bilateral (at least) symmetry. The rest is a function of how life developed here.


 * 3. "Close encounters of the third kinda rarley last more than a few minutes" I'd love to see the data set that is based on. 05:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * > 1.) Why would they come to earth with malicious intent? The same reason the US, UK, France, Spain etc
 * > came to the new world with malicious intent. Recources, slaves, minerals, etc


 * Brilliant, the US went to the new world, did they?
 * Ignoring that howler the three things you suggest would likely be available to a space-faring species in ways that are much more energy efficient, and do not mean facing another species or taking from another species.


 * Water would be more easily available from the Oort cloud or comets or gas giant moons than Earth, whilst this planet is wet it is also big and heavy, getting the water into space would be a lot of work when there are lots and lots of relatively light ice-cubes out there.


 * Slaves, why bother? A space faring species will have a lot of technology, they will likely have machines capable of replacing aliens' efforts. Would kidnapping humans and forcing them to work, providing them with Earth-like conditions and human compatible food etc. actually be worth it when the kidnapper must have advanced enough tech to get here to kidnap people? Use the tech to make mechanical slaves.


 * The same kind of arguments about water go for other minerals, though I don't deny that our planet has sorted materials out some what. You want silicates and stuff then the Earth's crust is a good source, but it does have a nuclear-armed species running about. Mars or Venus, or the Moon, likely have similar mineral deposits and will have been sorted too to some degree, getting your minerals there mean there is zero risk of a nuke in the face (or even a spear!).


 * An interplanetary species, or inter-solar system, or intergalactic, would have immense control of energy. Synthesising scarce resources becomes a possibility - like how the alchemical aim of making gold has been achieved by humans now, but is uneconomic because of the energy costs (firing big nuclei at lead, then cleaning up and purifying the (radioactive?) mess).


 * > 2.) Why would they be reasonably huminoid? The human form (bipedal, cranium size,
 * > etc) has been pretty effective for homo sapiens and other primates. Why not extra
 * > terrestrials. When we are talking about the billions of planets that could/may/do
 * > support life in the universe, it is plausible that at least one of two may have
 * > evolved life similar to human beings


 * Careful with the post-hoc reasoning there, just because our layout works it doesn't mean other layouts are insufficient for the local environment. Humans are good enough for what we face, and we will die out if evolution turns up a better system. Remember, we are not perfect (unlike how religious teachers seem to make humans out - apart from when we are portrayed as pathetic compared to god(s)), we are just that bit better than other Earth species.


 * When we are not in our ideal environment we do not necessarily do well against the locals - humans might be the apex predator on land and whilst we can use our brains and tools against sea creatures by default we are crap compared to ocean predators. An alien species' layout will be very related to environments of their originating planet. For example if this planet was significantly more aquatic then the dominant species might have webbed fingers and toes. A feature useless in space or for space travel, but still what a species would have if it ever travelled away from its home.


 * > 3.) Capable of surviving earthlike enviroments with no negative effects? no one
 * > says they do. Close encounters of the third kinda rarley last more than a few
 * > minutes, and if what is seen are indeed aliens with technology to cross interstellar
 * > distances it is not infessible they could find away to survive in a hostile
 * > enviroment. Humans do it all the time. Hell i did it two weeks ago in boston harbour.
 * > Also, carbon based life seems to be the most likely form of life in the universe.
 * > is it so hard to believe an alien planet could also have an atmosphere of oxygen
 * > mixed with an inert gass at a level of 10 to 20 psi?--BenB (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a possible close encounter of the third kind that last more than a few minutes give even the dumbest person enough time to realise they have gotten the wrong end of the stick? And so it wasn't an alien encounter at all. They were just pissed, or had food poisoning or were tripping on a drug. Or had bashed their heads. Or were dreaming. Or..... Half an hour of that and the person might really start to have doubts, once any initially stunned-ness fades (a feeling that tends to only last a few minutes anyway).


 * I dunno what you Boston Harbour reference is, are you saying you used SCUBA equipment or something? I agree though, to think a non-Earth species wouldn't need help on Earth is pretty optimistic.


 * But humans aren't even perfectly compatible with our planet, we get sun burn, wind burn. We can be killed by the weather and temperature. We can't live too long too high up, we cannot breed above ~4km up or so. We can't live for long periods on 3/5ths of the surface of the Earth without technology, because it is not land. Humans alone can face negative effects when living under undoubtedly Earth-like environments.0


 * By that reasoning though aliens won't cope perfectly with their own home world either. But if they are an interplanetary species (at least - that assumes we haven't detected their technology in our own solar system) then they stand to have very good control of what they need to live and are able to manage their environments effectively. If they can travel across large swathes of space then they could protect themselves effectively against a planet's environment, and so the no negative effects would be effectively true. In fact no one is saying about negative effects because if a species can solve space travel problems then solving hostile atmosphere problems would be well within their skill set.


 * I know I'm replying to an old comment, but I felt I needed to rant :) BrowserWarVet (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

A potential pseudo-skeptic article? Isn't Rational Wiki is supposed to contain rational articles? 05/08/12
I was just reading this Ufology article, and now, I see that, unfortunately, confused people are allowed access to Rational Wiki, can't blame it, this is the internet, but this one looks more like something coming from Uncyclopedia than anything else.

What I stumble into is an article full of ridicule and generalizations, with claims that require proof and only seem like typical pseudo-skeptical dismissal.

It all starts with the purposeful quotation marks: 'Ufology is the "study" of UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects)'.

Then, unsatisfied, the writer appeals to humor and a obviously generalizing claim: This mostly consists of people saying "wouldn't it be cool if they were alien spacecraft".

"Ironically, as Isaac Asimov pointed out, if people insist on identifying UFOs as spacecraft piloted by alien beings, then they very well aren't unidentified anymore."

This is why the name "UAP" was coined for, because the constant misuse of the word made the "UFO" word be widely confused with "extraterrestrial spacecraft" on uninformed minds (which is the case of many, if not most people).

"Ufologists spend a lot of time pushing conspiracy theories regarding government cover-ups."

Tell me more about how this guy knows this, he must be omniscient or have really some statistics to back him up, which, unfortunately he didn't present, making his claim quite ludicrous...what a disaster.

"Stories about alleged government cover-ups of evidence for aliens are inherently unprovable and unfalsifiable, but we can say a bit though:

''1) If real aliens exist and want to communicate with Earthlings they can easily do this, by, for example, landing something in any crowded part of any big city and repeating as necessary. Aliens could also do things near major broadcasting studios.

2) If real aliens exist and don’t want Earthlings to find out about them, with their probable superior technology they could easily hide from us."'''

There it comes: A nice dichotomy with an attempt for an argument, but with premise that such beings (whatever they are and IF they in fact are present) would have a behavior similar to ours or that their objectives would be predictable. It seems that this person knew more about aliens than the so called ufologists themselves, as he could be quite assertive and base some premises that aren't even attainable to the empirical.

"Ufologists also make up fake histories, like Erich von Däniken and Robert Lazar, and rumors of covert alien invasions."

The word "some" exists for a reason, when someone says "ufologists do this", "ufologists do that" they are making a generalization that they probably can't prove (just like many other generalizations). Furthermore, the claim that such people make fake claims requires proof, it's called the burden of proof, isn't this Rational Wiki? Or maybe I clicked "Pseudo-skeptical Wiki" and i'm reading it wrong by a very improbable accident?

It's astounding how this article swims with flawed argumentation, seemingly unbased claims (some, blatantly lacking) and an extremely simplistic and biased approach on the subject, i honestly expected better from Rational Wiki, how naive of me.

I abhor this kind of content and behavior too much so I won't edit it, i'll let this the way it is, just so that people who come here see it. If you're reading this and would like to do this community a favor, make sure you change this article to a better article (in the state this article is, any change will do just fine).


 * Striping away the hysteria and hyperbole we are left with only two specific complaints:


 * The term UAP is used to divorce some sightings from the bad rep UFO has.
 * That we failed to qualify and quantify our pro-nouns


 * Since the U in both UAP and UFO both stand for the same thing our specific criticism still stands regardless of the term used. I will "modify" our pro-nouns. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

but... but...
I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALwiki!-- il' Dictator   Mikal  17:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Very funny, but I specified the reasons why the article is lacking, so I won't consider the response (I suppose you didn't even read what I wrote there, but that's fine). -Carlosewm
 * Unknown individual, if you don't like it, why not help fix it? As simple as that. This is a wiki effort, not an insular community. If some loser in the past wrote something with his underwear is on backwards, it doesn't always mean the rest of the community agrees or would refuse to change it or even stands by the content of the article. How about you write an outline of points, people can evaluate it, and we can start making something nicer out of this admittedly lackluster entry? If you have the time to make long talk page posts, you can write an outline at least. I hope we're glad to have you, if you really want to help out. ±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR more at 11 17:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, they already said they refuse to edit it. That would require more effort than they can afford, I imagine. Instead, we're left with a very unfocused tl;dr rant that doesn't actually constructively help anyone. This is what the "why do you call it RATIONAL wiki?!?!" response is for. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 18:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand, I might try to edit it later, I see that my long text was "tl;dr" for some, but the reason for the large text is because in order to contest something, I have to elaborate on why it's wrong (of course, otherwise, it wouldn't be reasonable to do so).

Since I honestly don't have the patience to edit the article itself (I actually am intolerant to such impartial approach, i'll probably leave this task for some other (more patient) person.

Let me clarify that I am aware that not all people here will behave in such way as the author of some of the phrases shown in my criticism, the reason why I suggested it in my text was to cause mobilization (and for the most part, I was pretty frustrated). -Carlosewm
 * "i dont want to fix it, fix it for me" isnt how wikis work. il' Dictator   Mikal  18:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

UFO sightings?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVI4SS0NY_E

I was wondering about this video, has it been shown on the news before?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh1W1G1qFX8

And this one.

I hope not, the first one's badly edited, it's obviously plonked onto a shot of the sky, with intercuts of the crowd filming the ufo dropped in from elsewhere - a pan down from the ufo to the crowd would have been more convincing. There's a sound clip of a girl screaming (right at the end of the river part) - the sound quality of this scream is radically different from the conversation. This is a bit of a crap effort, really, although the CGI UFO is nice looking. Perhaps whoever made it should go for a media career instead of farting about on youtube. I'm afraid that I didn't bother looking at the second one, is it more of the same? Sophie Wilder  15:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The second one features a lady in a cocktail dress - who calls herself "rev michelle hopkins" - droning on about UFOs and how orbiting satellites equipped with LED projectors create holograms to fool people into seeing cities where there are no cities, etc. Her other videos are all Bible stuff. Very entertaining. Leuders (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

D'oh
i wanted to put this in science fiction category but i screwed up because i am a n00b. I want to fix it but I'm really paranoid of being banned will somebody please help me 22:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Fixed it. Rationalwiki titles use sentence case, where only the first word is capitalized. Proper nouns too, of course. Alec Sanderson (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)