Talk:Unidentified flying object

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon ufology.svg

This Ufology related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Editorial notes

Archives for this talk page: , (new)

CIA says: UFOs were us[edit]

"Evidence we need" section[edit]

The evidence we need section currently has the following: I have put numbers.

1. Images taken by the aliens of their own home-world.

2. A sample of alien DNA (or the equivalent).

3. Emission spectroscopy of the light emitted by the UFOs

4. Exotic material never yet produced on Earth, perhaps as part of "UFO" wreckage.

5. A mathematical proof which would be quite routine for the alien but which has not been solved by us on Earth at this time.

6 Similarly, any technology or scientific theory — unification of quantum mechanics and relativity would be nice.

7. Flying saucer/triangle/cigar blueprints smuggled out from Area 51 or Lockheed's Skunk Works.

8. Seeing one ourselves (or, much better, one popping out in broad daylight over a large city<ref group=note>City-buster laser or whatever optional, and/or landing in the middle of an event heavily attended/covered by media.)

I would suggest that at the very least 4, 5, 6 would only be good evidence that those things exist. They would not, in themselves, be evidence for the existence of aliens. If nobody objects I will zap them later.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've cleaned it up a bit.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Still nothing on the 2017 Pentagon release?[edit]

Look into this stuff it's crazy. The videos are blurry, but combined with all the witness testimony it forms a truly damning picture. Similar objects were spotted on numerous other occasions, they have been confirmed by multiple credible eyewitnesses who haven't tried to sell their stories, and the UFOs clearly demonstrate technological capabilities beyond human capacity. Unless you believe the truly ludicrous assertion that the US government has a program of giant flying tic-tacs, this is a clear demonstration that UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin. — Unsigned, by: Mr Grasshopper / talk / contribs

@Mr Grasshopper Link it please. Also, make sure you use a credible source, not a UFO truther site. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The problem with most 'UFO films' is the general blurriness of the footage - why has there been no 'clear good quality' material especially recently (consider recordings of the Chelyabinsk meteor).
There are flying tic tacs - see here and here.
The NASA ship can be found here, with a precursor here. Anna Livia (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
This article has dated very poorly. The 2004 USS Nimitz encounters and the 2014/2015 Theodore Roosevelt incidents are by far the best documented UFO cases, with many credible witnesses, and even government validation that they have no idea what happened there. — Unsigned, by: 2001:56a:f391:7200:8049:5250:8613:fdeb / talk
Two points. One, if you're the original poster (User:Mr Grasshopper) you still need to cite sources. Even if you aren't, cite sources. Secondly, there's a massive, massive gap between "I don't know" and "Hyper-advanced space aliens". "I don't know" could simply mean that the flying objects in question are of an unknown nature/origin/whathaveyou. Now if only there was a term for that... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. If you see something strange then the correct reaction should be, "That's strange. I wonder what it is."
The incorrect reaction would be "That's strange, it must be aliens".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Most people will accept that 'there is life elsewhere in the universe' ('the universe is big, and if it has happened once it is likely to happen elsewhere). They will also accept 'weird stuff happens in the sky, much of which will be "auroras, lightning, meteor(ite)s, St Elmo's Fire, clouds, birds, and planes/balloons etc reflecting sunlight, constructed satellites, military test vehicles, and so on" but there will be some things which do not have a readily accessible explanation" (even when they look it up on their favourite search engine). They will probably have to be convinced that actual aliens are running about, and chasing people who are unlikely to be the most suitable for discussing trade negotiations. Anna Livia (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Article doesn't mention newer developments[edit]

If someone were to google or search YouTube the term "UFO" today, the first response would be this or a news report related to that *60 Minutes* special or its findings. These declassified developments are different from the usual confused weather balloon/drone reports. It's racking my brain, and it's not reasonable to expect a clean answer anytime soon. As always, it's important to keep unexplained phenomenon as unexplained rather than conceding a definitive "aliens" answer. I'm afraid this article has thus far been tainted in its eagerness to similarly rush to explaining the inexplicable. Mewnst (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Just came across some fairly decent explanations for the new stuff, leaving up my old comment as a relic of how gullible and hopeful I can be. I WANT TO BELIEVE! anyway the as-of-yet unaddressed UFO stories in the article are explained here, here, and here. (TL;DW: "Nimitz" is a distant plane, "Go Fast" is a weather balloon that looks like it's moving fast because of parallax but it is actually moving at wind speed, and "Gimbal" is a jet or plane that appears to be rotating due to the camera's rotation that was done automatically in tracking.) Mewnst (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, tainted in its eagerness to similarly rush to explaining AWAY the inexplicable. That's what the problem has been for 70+ years. The problem was never we know it is aliens, the problem is that UFO's continue to defy explanation, and people who SHOULD have full control over our airspace, in fact, DO NOT. That is exactly WHY they are rushed to being explained AWAY. It is the same with academics. The people who SHOULD have understanding of the physical laws of nature, in fact, DO NOT. So in both cases the incentive is to ignore, ignore, ignore and toss some ridicule in there as well for good measure to save face and protect credibility at all costs. The Defense Department as well as University academics' death blow is to appear illegitimate. Roo (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
There will always be items in the 'not yet identified section' (and some will be 'combinations of things' - some weather phenomenon produces a distorted viewing of a 'known known' etc).
There are also the non-official observers - bird/animal watchers, amateur astronomers, dashcams (as with meteors and fireballs), and 'observers in countries not aligned to the US'.
Given how big the universe is, it is logical to assume that life in some form exists on many planets, and there will be at least some populations at our level of technological development or better. If there are species which are spaceborne and they are monitoring and investigating the Earth, they will know that people have some vague awareness of their presence, and that they should act accordingly. Anna Livia (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Will mention this Anna Livia (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

This site gives the best analysis of the 2004 incident that I have seen. In short it seems to be false positives caused by a newer, more sensitive radar system. The same issues applies to the F-18 radar cases, which were similarly upgraded to be more sensitive with the intent of detecting stealth aircraft. Pilot sightings are also consistent with this, when your radar tells you there is something weird you will see it as a simple confirmation bias. — Unsigned, by: 2601:204:cc00:1f00:3d43:f817:f74b:84c0 / talk / contribs


As the 'release of official US documents' will be later today perhaps a temporary measure of protection of this page for a short while. Anna Livia (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

February 2023 Balloons[edit]

Some mention of these should be made - and a mention should be retained whenever and however resolved. — Unsigned, by: Anna Livia / talk / contribs