Talk:Extraterrestrial UFO hypothesis/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Extraterrestrial UFO hypothesis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Wrong Glen Taylor

You guys are linking the man who said the quote to another Glen Taylor, the correct one is Glen H. Taylor, who was actually not a child at the time of all this happening. If someone could fix that, that'd be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.4.25 (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

removed

Removed this POV material from main article FreplySpang (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial Visitation

Extraterrestrial Civilizations are probably visiting Earth. The reasons very. First there could be military reasons, running the gamete from military espionage seeking to gain advanced military technology. For example how advanced are our RLVs, ELVs, and propulsion technology. The second reason will be more cultural in nature, re. Our music, Art, etc. Space Drive There are several types of possible space drives. To reach superluminal velocities in SR/GR Physics you possibility open up a Star Gate, better known as a worm hole. The othier posibily driver aare Tacheyon, and the Bias Drive, or AKA the warp drive. Using a new and controversial theory called autodynamics you could decay an ion based propulsion drive into superluminall photons and the other drive uses Pico-Gravitons. It is a hypothetical particle that causes gravity. The author has been published in Physics journals. Conclusion Some UFO’s are probably Extraterrestrial Vehicle" . Vehicles from near by stars. There are tons of near by stars that could have an Earth like planet revolving around it, and in my humble opinion UFOlogy should be the definition of the study of Extraterrestrial Vehicle

Extraterrestrial Visitation

Extraterrestrial Civilizations are probably visiting Earth. The reasons very. First there could be military reasons, running the gamete from military espionage seeking to gain advanced military technology. For example how advanced are our RLVs, ELVs, and propulsion technology. The second reason will be more cultural in nature, re. Our music, Art, etc.

Space Drive

There are several types of possible space drives. To reach superluminal velocities in SR/GR Physics you possibility open up a Star Gate, better known as a worm hole. The othier posibily driver aare Tacheyon, and the Bias Drive, or AKA the warp drive. Using a new and controversial theory called autodynamics you could decay an ion based propulsion drive into superluminall photons and the other drive uses Pico-Gravitons. It is a hypothetical particle that causes gravity. The author has been published in Physics journals.

Conclusion

Some UFO’s are probably Extraterrestrial Vehicle" . Vehicles from near by stars. There are tons of near by stars that could have an Earth like planet revolving around it, and in my humble opinion UFOlogy should be the definition of the study of Extraterrestrial Vehicle.

External Links

Formulation and Predictions of the ETH, by Brian Zeiler

http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/

http://www.autodynamicsuk.org/

FTL Cesium Experiment explanation by Ricardo Carezani

http://www.autodynamicsuk.org/Cesium.htm

Notable Nearby Stars

http://www.solstation.com/stars.htm

Chronological List of Notable Quotes and Studies Supporting ETH

Surely this is long enough that it should become a separate article. Ben Finn 23:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think M.A.Biot's statement was supporting UFO existence

"The least improbable explanation is that these things are artificial and controlled." He probably meant that the UFO explanation was artificial. "...My opinion for some time has been that they have an extraterrestrial origin."..Yes, extraterrestrial masses or waves but not spacecraft..From an aerodynamical viewpoint, says Dr. Biot, the saucer shape makes very little sense if the machine is to travel in the atmosphere. A disk has a high drag and is a poor airfoil unless stabilized; when whirled at high speed through the air, it "wobbles" distressingly.

Old version archived

Saved the following before editing it in the article:

" * 7. "The Problem of Astronomical Differences" Hynek argued that it was impossible to travel from another planet to Earth in "any reasonable time"(Clark 1998, 212)"

--Chris 02:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hard to interpret

"Hynek admitted that, in his judgement, all the arguments offer considerable problems."

I'm not sure which arguments this refers to, but I'm going to attempt a clarification. --Chris 02:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Trim quotations at end of article?

This is a long list of quotations, mostly speculating about individual UFO sightings. I don't think they're directly relevant to the ETH, and in any case they would fit better in an article about UFO sightings. --Chris 03:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The usage of the acronym "UFO"

The acronym is being used incorrectly in this article. The article uses the term "UFO" to describe the label as one single entity or type of craft. However, UFO means "any one thing that is unidentified, is flying, and is an object." It is a label of anything unidentified in the sky, more or less, not a name for any specific thing. Thus, a rock thrown by a person can be a UFO. Mentally replace "UFO" with "rock thrown by neighbor" and you'll see my point. Thus, I have changed every mention of the word "UFO" to "unexplained paranormal event" in the cases that fit. However, for example, in the quote of Condon, he says "some UFO's MAY be alien craft" or something similar, the usage fits and I won't remove it. I fixed some of them, but not all. All need to be fixed. I'll tag it for cleanup. --Anonymouses 00:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hostility Hypothesis

A sub-hypothesis of the ETH is that the aliens, or at least some of them, are hostile.

See Ufology#The Hostility Hypothesis.

Sources:

Google Video (1h 17 min, approx. 300 MB): An illustrated lecture from Peter Robbins about Wilhelm Reich and his observations with respect to UFOs. He also tells all life history of Reich.

Eden, Jerome: Scavengers From Space, Careywood, Idaho, PPCC, 1989, at present time out of print

Eden, Jerome: The Desert Makers, Careywood, Idaho, PPCC, 1988, available from Flatlandbooks. This is very expensive, 50$, and I have the plan to ask his wife who has the copyright - Jerome Eden himself is, unfortunately, already dead - for the permission to publish this short book on my Homepage as a PDF file.

--David Moerike 05:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: In article Ufology, I have written the paragraph: Ufology#The Hostility Hypothesis. Please give your opinions whether I should cut it out there, bring it here into the article Extraterrestrial Hypothesis, and put into article Ufology only a short note.

--David Moerike 18:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep it there, it is absolutely nothing to do with ETH. ETH is the conjecture that UFOs are piloted alien ships, anything else is irrelevant unless it plays a substantial part in shifting belief in ETH one way or the other (ala the Hill abductions).

perfectblue 19:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The link to the non-existing paragraph is still here. I'll yank it. Kortoso (talk)

Superluminal Speed

The fact that the speed of light is the maximum speed hangs together with the fact that on a spaceship with relativistic speed the clock goes slower. That means to me that if the UFO motor somehow generates time, traveling with superluminal speed is possible.

--David Moerike 06:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you know the speed of light has been broken? By light? Using magnetics it's been shown that light can break the "ftl" barrier. I happen to believe that that Einstein was wrong... at least in this small regard. ---J.S (t|c) 19:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that one of the big concerns is the amount of energy that you need to produce in order ot excellerate to Light speed. It's stupendoulsy high. I don't personally believe that wormholes are possible, but if they are, they look to be more practical than building a ship with an engine output the size of a small supernova.

perfectblue 09:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

shrug* were are speculating. The universe is full of possibilities. :) I happen to think the most likely possibility for accelerating near to the speed of light would be the bussard ramjet. (or whatever it's called). But in any case... these are all just questions without answers. Every year we discover things about science we dont know previously... perhaps we'll figure out the mechanics of ftl travel? ---J.S (t|c) 18:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Recommend you check out the wikipedia entry on superluminal travel. "True" FTL is considered theoretically impossible under the special theory of relativity, which has stood the test of over 100 years, so it seems about as true as science theories go. What mass media frequently reports as "scientists have broken the speed of light" refers to various phenomena like "apparent" or "effective" FTL. If aliens come here from other galaxies etc, then they're not likely to be doing it by "FTL" in any normal sense. There are various ways of "cheating", however, wormholes being a popular scifi example. --Psm 02:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If aliens were flying from star to star (and Drake's equation suggest that this is probable), wouldn't they be using some sort of propulsion system that would leave a tell-tale signature? Probably modern astronomers are looking at it right now, trying to fit the phenomena into their conventional assumptions. Kortoso (talk)

Discover: Black Hole Driven Starships Might Ply the Galaxy[[1]] "Today’s gamma-ray telescopes might be able to pick up the exhaust from a black hole starship, but the particle beam may be so narrow that a chance alignment with our observatories would be rare."

NASA: New and Improved Antimatter Spaceship for Mars Missions[[2]] "However, in reality this power comes with a price. Some antimatter reactions produce blasts of high energy gamma rays. Gamma rays are like X-rays on steroids. They penetrate matter and break apart molecules in cells, so they are not healthy to be around. High-energy gamma rays can also make the engines radioactive by fragmenting atoms of the engine material."

Totally disputed

No one in the scientific community takes the claims of the E.T. hypothesis seriously. The fact that the supposed "scientific" supporters have citations going to the 1960s shows how terrible this article is. I have tagged it as totally disputed until I can get around to fixing this. --ScienceApologist 00:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I can name you several famous astronomer, astrophysicists and aerospace engineers who support ETH in full or in part. This proves beyond any doubt that there is support in the scientific community. I'm afraid that WP:V and WP:RS trump you on this one.

You are welcome to try and prove that these citations are fake, but I don't think that you will have any success there as they all come from publicly available records that can be googled or looked up in your local library.

perfectblue 09:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be more convinced by your argument if you had better orthography and grammar, but I have to say that removing the tag seems to be to be a lack of WP:AGF. I'm going to restore it because this (mis)conception (and some might say delusion) of yours that there are members of the scientific community that believe that UFOs are alien spacecraft permeates the article. Therefore the entire article is disputed. --ScienceApologist 21:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be more convinced of your good intentions if you didn't start by making an insulting comment. I have provided numerous citations from PhD qualified astronomers, physicists and the like who believe/d in UFOs, as per wiki policy, unless you believe that the citations are fake, it is indisputable that there are/were scientists who believed in ETH.

I also caution you to remember, this document covers 60 years in history and popular culture.

perfectblue 08:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Many of the summative facts are wrong and the article is biased as I pointed out above. However, the word "hypothesis" indicates that it is subject to science-related policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. This means that there has to be some connection to current reality. Dead scientists don't count as scientific imprimitur. --ScienceApologist 08:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Denying the facts, in your own bias calling parts of the article biased. You're ridiculous. Morganson691 (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

above user blocked indefinitely in 2012 for abuse of editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.40.207 (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Passoria

Passoria is likely a typo of Passaic. Image captions are also NOT the place for debunking text.

I have changed the image.

perfectblue 08:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Jacques Vallée not a proponent

Vallée may have once been a proponent of the ETH early in his career, but for most of it he has been a critic of the ETH. See his Wikipedia entry Jacques Vallée for more. I removed him from the "Notable supporters" list and added a link to his classic anti-ETH paper.

why is there a list of "Notable supporters"?

this would seem an odd section to have for a hypothesis entry. it doesn't add to the understanding of the topic, strikes me as a plain POV entry (e.g. "these distinguished people support the theory so that adds to it's viability"). whatever common arguments these notables have in favor of the hypothesis should be folded narrative-wise into the article; any notable articles they have written should be sources to such text. --Psm 16:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

--Psm 17:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Introduction (was: "It is supported by some individuals within the scientific community"?)

As best as I can tell, there are a number of mainstream scientists that believe one or both of the following: (a) there is life on other planets in the universe and (b) ETH deserves serious consideration and should not be dismissed. But that's not the same as saying they *support* ETH. E.g. the 1977 survey of astrophysicists indicated that the typical scientist would wager the probability of ETH being true as only a couple of percentage points. That's hardly "support". If there is indeed any *support* for this in the scientific community, could somebody please point me to a reference for that? If not, that should be reworded. Similarly, saying "The hypothesis has divided scholars for decades" strikes me as directly misleading. Furthermore, the opening entry makes no mention of the huge distinction that science makes between intelligent life somewhere in the universe and the notion of such intelligence physically having visited our world. Also, saying that "ETH is an important component of UFO Abduction reports" is logically odd, since how could you possibly have alien abduction without ETH? In fact, isn't UFO Abduction the principal source of witness evidence for ETH?

I would suggest the second paragraph be reworded to "Though there is broad support in the scientific community for the notion of life elsewhere in the universe, even intelligent such, there is little if any support for the notion that the Earth has yet to be physically visited. However there are a number of scientists who would argue that ETH should not be dismissed but still merits serious consideration. A number of organizations continue to actively study UFO sightings in relation to ETH, in particular to the closely related theory of UFO Abduction, and ETH remains one of the central questions of ufology." --Psm 17:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No comments or complaints, so I edited the paragraph accordingly (and merged to a single summary paragraph).--Psm 21:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist rolled back some of my changes and removed the citation. SA's comment in the history is, in effect, that the citation is not in line with the statement. His point is well taken; the panel really commented on UFOs, not ETH per se. Lacking citations to the contrary (and I searched far and wide), there is no support for the notion that anything but a tiny number of "scientists" support the notion of ETH; but there is evidence to assert that, when "scientists" review the evidence at hand, they conclude that *UFOs* merit further study. I will update some of the intro sentences to that effect.--Psm 17:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of the intro, I really despair for Wikipedia which has poorly written intros to articles. In this case it says "......hypothesis (ETH) is the hypothesis......". That's awful repetition. Then it says ".... UFOs are best explained as being creatures from other planets....". That's even worse. If UFOs exist they are vehicles, not creatures. I've made changes, and tweaked other stuff. Moriori 22:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it needed some cleaning up, but you also (inadvertently?) changed some of the key meaning; life being common in the universe is still the Copernican assumption. The rare earth hypothesis is the minority, and even it restricts itself to multicellular life (microbial being at least 3.5 Ga old). --Psm 17:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

And you also added the part about ETH implying that there are creatures in the UFOs. I'm not sure that's strictly true. That's the popular perception, sure, but that's not what the etymology seems to imply. --Psm 18:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "some scientists" seems to be where controversial topics end up. But it means nothing. You can get "some scientists" to support anything. Conversely, if a statement is supported by one or two citations, and you disagree with it, you can't just reduce it to "some" because there are implicitly only "some" scientists behind those citations. E.g. if the only "scientific" panel convened in recent times on a topic (UFOs) have concluded that it "merits further study", then the presumption becomes that *that* is the nominal view, unless you find citations to the contrary. If you don't agree with the conclusion, then fine, support your disagreement (with citations), but please don't arbitrarily reduce it to "some". I'm trying to make sure the intro sorts out the difference between scientific support for life elsewhere in the universe (which is prevalent), the notion of UFOs meriting further study, and the notion that UFOs are spacecraft from extraterrestrial civilizations (which has approximately zero scientific support). Those are important distinctions. Boiling everything down to "some scientists" won't help a reader. --Psm 18:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Psm, I don't have a POV here, I don't particularly care what the actual definition is. I want to see Wikipedia look like an encyclopedia, unambiguous and well written. I implied nothing about the definition of EH. I simply fixed the nonsensical intro which said in part, "UFOs are best explained as being (extraterrestrial) creatures", and tweaked further on. I am surprised that that info could survive in this article for almost a year!

Regarding the second par of the intro, which you have posted, there is no citation for the claim ".......there is broad support in the scientific community for life elsewhere in the universe.....". That cries out for reliable supporting reference/s, especially given that the citation supporting a statement further down that paragraph, leads to a report of the 1997 UFO investigation which says the review panel was not convinced that evidence it heard "pointed to the involvement of an extraterrestrial intelligence". That alone doesn't negate "there is broad support in the scientific community", but it sure indicates a citation is required for such a claim.

Regarding "some scientists", I considered "most scientists" but knew a {{citation}} tag would arrive soon after I clicked Save Page had I chosen that phrase. Whatever, I think "some (or many, or most) scientists support" is far better than the current "there is broad support in the scientific community". Moriori 23:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pinging some folks for help with references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psm (talk • contribs) 20:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Total overhaul needed

This article is atrocious. A person reading it would come away thinking that the ETH has more support than it actually does. I took the first steps towards neutralizing this problem, but have also tagged the article to get more visibility. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Public opinions polls make it quite clear that ETH has a very high level of support among the public at large. That's just a simple FACT, supported by many polls over the past few decades. And the level of support in the reality of UFOs goes up with the level of education--another FACT. The level of support among scientific and technical types varies depending on poll. Sturrocks 1970s polls did show low levels of support for the ETH among professional astronomers and aerospace people. But it ALSO showed a very high level interest among the same people (you deleted that) as well as skepticism toward UFOs being directly correlated with ignorance (of course deleted). Other polls, such as by Industrial Research and Development and Optical Spectra, indicated much higher belief in the ETH amongst their professional technical readership. Of course, you again deleted all that--might give the reader the wrong impression.

The fact is, your statement that the ETH has practically no scientific support is completely false. Previous polls indicate some support at varying levels. The current opinions of the "scientific community" as a whole are unknown, because there has never been a poll to broadly sample such opinions. How can you claim that the idea is "generally disparaged within the scientific community" without such a poll? Where's your proper citation? (meaning not just the opinion of a fellow skeptic)

The article as previously written before my edits was very biased and inaccurate, such as claiming there was no support or discussion of the ETH in 1947 or before, even claiming that Kenneth Arnold never considered it. That's false on all counts, as the fully cited historical discussion indicated.

Your "steps toward neutralizing the problem" seem to be the usual one of the highly biased debunker, namely mass censorship of material. You probably deleted 95% of my contributed material, which was fully cited, including the historical discussion. CSICOP debunker Terry Matheson's totally BOGUS statement that the ETH was never considered before Arnold you left in, while the FACTUAL and historical information (such as Charles Fort and discussions during the mystery airships of the 1890s and 1900s) that contradicted it you of course deleted. The ETH was definitely supported by high-ups in the Pentagon through at least 1952; they in fact created Project Blue Book--that's history. Air Force Regulation 200-2, issued by the AF Chief of Staff, treating UFOs as real craft to be analyzed for their technical aspects and threat to national security, was very real. You deleted discussion of that. The Air Force studies of 1947 also concluded they were real craft. You deleted that as well. You totally gutted the "For" section, making it seem there was virtually zero support or arguments that could be made in favor. All that's left is two short paragraphs. Of course, you left the more detailed "Against arguments" intact, plus throwing in your own clearly POV comments elsewhere about how the ETH has virtually no support.

What's your problem anyway? I agree the article needed some paring down, but what you did was outrageous. You took a meat cleaver to the article, destroying most of the factual content, history, and narrative, and left almost nothing other than your personal anti-ETH views and uncited assertions. The article is indeed biased and nonfactual now after your massive deletions. Dr Fil (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Public opinions polls make it quite clear that ETH has a very high level of support among the public at large. --> High level is subjective, but the polling is still held at this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
And the level of support in the reality of UFOs goes up with the level of education--another FACT. --> This is not a fact that I have seen cited by a reliable source. You'll have to do better than MUFON analyses. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course, you again deleted all that--might give the reader the wrong impression. I deleted that which was sourced by less than reliable sources. We cannot use pro-ETH sites to prove that ETH is popular. You must refer to neutral or (even better) skeptical citations to avoid biased interpretations of data. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
How can you claim that the idea is "generally disparaged within the scientific community" without such a poll? Where's your proper citation? (meaning not just the opinion of a fellow skeptic) --> This is acknowledged even by believers in ETH. Go to a random meeting of UFO-conspiracy believers and see what they have to say about "scientific consensus". ScienceApologist (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You probably deleted 95% of my contributed material, which was fully cited, including the historical discussion. --> Your material will not be allowed back in without reliable sourcing. That means avoiding UFOlogists, MUFON, etc. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
In short, you need to take a careful look at WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. Most of the things you included in this article were in direct contradiction to these policies and guidelines. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I also point out that a rather large amount of text that I removed had nothing to do with ETH but was rather about UFOs themselves, claims of extraterrestrial beliefs independent of UFOs, or were long quotes about suppression and censorship. Such stuff does not belong in the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we revert this article to the version before ScienceApologist "improved" it. If he continues his vandalism - yes, removing relevant cited information is vandalism - I suggest this article will be locked for some time. I guess I'm not going too far if I say his action was childish at least. 83.145.218.177 (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)tt

By the way: just look what ScienceApologist told earlier on this discussion: "No one in the scientific community takes the claims of the E.T. hypothesis seriously." It's funny that somebody who makes such a statement can have a word "science" in his alias. Or do you know every single member of scientific community personally? Sorry SA but that comment permanently disqualified you as a moderator of this article. If you think the article needs attention try to encourage somebody elso to fix it. You are not going to do it.83.145.218.177 (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

He did the same thing here. After reverting almost all my work, he rewrote the intro and another section saying that the ETH had virtually no support among scientists. That's his bias, which he wears on his sleeve, one which he wants reflected through the entire article. (Hence also destroying the detailed "For" section which I wrote citing Kaku and Haisch's arguments.) What's really rich is how he claims my citations weren't up to his superior personal standards (using this as his bogus rationale to delete cited material), yet when I asked him to provide even one citation to back up his claim that there is no support for the ETH among scientists, his response above was that even "UFO conspiracy believers" at their meetings believe that. That's apparently his level of "citation". Part of what he also deleted were two mentioned technical magazine surveys (Industrial Research/Development & Optical Spectra) which indicated that the ETH did in fact have a decent level of support among some groups of scientists and engineers. (Over 30% & 40% respectively in these surveys) Again, his claimed "rationale" for deleting this and other material was the poll source was a MUFON "analysis" article published on a (shudder!) pro-ETH website, therefore it must be what?--wrong, biased, made up? In reality the article wasn't "analyzing" anything, just citing poll results--ones that he didn't want the reader to see because they contradicted the slant he wants. "Science"Apologist doesn't know the first thing about proper scientific debate. Censorship of facts you don't like IS NOT part of the scientific method.Dr Fil (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by consensus which means you are obligated to work with me just as I am obligated to work with you. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right about that. But Wikipedia also works on majority rule combined with free speech and scientific principle and I'm afraid there will be others too that consider your work as vandalism.83.145.218.177 (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Is ScienceApologists idea of "consensus" to immediately take a meat cleaver to my edits and delete almost all of them--no discussion attempted? It doesn't seem that he feels he is in any way "obligated to work with me", or he wouldn't have done what he did. As usual, he just pays lip service to Wikipedia rules. What he did was pure vandalism (also a violation of the three revert rule), not an attempt at some sort of "consensus". It also shows he is operating in bad faith. I spent a lot of time researching and making those edits. These were serious edits and fully cited. To have some know-it-all destroy it like he did really fries me. If he had instead said my edits were too detailed or lengthy, please edit it down, I would have agreed with him and done it. But his intentions were clearly dishonorable, not to make it "better", but to make the article strongly reflect his own personal prejudices by minimizing or eliminating any arguments that might in any way clarify or support the opposing POV.Dr Fil (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia does not work by majority rule and while Wikipedia is not censored, we also have standards for inclusion. Vandalism is defined by Wikipedia guidelines as well, and it will be a hard case to make that I'm vandalizing this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can decide by himself if his/her actions are vandalism or not, so we have to see what others think. That's what I meant with majority rule.89.27.11.114 (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is just more of ScienceApologists' hypocrisy and arbitrary "standards". It becomes "fringe" just because he says so, and he then uses this as his "justification" to censor it, then claim he isn't censoring. He tries to hide behind the very Wikipedia rules he is violating. What a piece of work! Dr Fil (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You can ask for a third opinion or file a request for comment if you would like to get some additional input. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need for that. I'm confident your "improvements" will receive attention anyway.89.27.11.114 (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Dr Fil, what do you think we should do? It seems clear to me ScienceApologists keeps terrorizing this article as long as he/she has an opportunity. Do you have knowledge how these kind of situations are usually handled? 89.27.11.114 (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the suggest to revert the article back to its original form is a good one, then start to add my material back in. If "Science"Apologist decides to censor the material again, then it is time to write him up and try to get his editing privileges revoked. Let's all cool off and put him on probation; maybe he will see the error of his ways.

In the meantime I will try to shorten my edits; I think they were too long the first time around and needed to be cut down somewhat, but not cut to pieces or completely censored like SA did. Maybe some of SA's criticisms had some merit, like the connection between some of my UFO history and the ETH. So either I should clarify that or edit it out.

SA in the meantime should take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask himself if he is really the scientist he thinks he is if his automatic response is to censor certifiably FACTUAL material he obviously finds extremely threatening to his mindset. That's not a scientist at work--it's a propagandist with an agenda.

The only reasonably way to deal with extremely controversial articles, like this one, is to do point/counterpoint, like Wikipedia recommends. Debunkers like our friend "Science"Apologist, however, obviously wants only his views to be strongly represented, hence his censorship.

I never cut the opposite POV unless it obviously made up or grossly in error, is written in a soapbox manner, or otherwise needs rewriting because it is stated as fact instead of opinion. E.g., skeptic Matheson's quote that UFOs were never associated with the ETH prior to 1947 is totally bogus, was previously challenged in the article with factual data, but our friend and esteemed colleague "Science"Apologist left it in the article unchallenged as a "fact" while censoring the historical data that proved it wrong. The quote I think should simply be cut from the article entirely since it is total bunk.Dr Fil (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just realize that so much of the stuff you had in was not referenced by reliable sources, by which I mean you used pro-UFO sources to make bald statements of fact. If you do this again, we will remove it until you can find a mainstream source that references it. WP:WEIGHT dictates how much we should devote to UFO-devotees fantasies. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This is your standard M.O. for censoring articles--claim a source isn't "reliable" by your pristine standards, then immediately delete it. There are numerous complaints against you already for your arrogant and self-righteous censorship of articles. You have even censored discussions. You get to play God or thought police and decide what is or isn't a good source. Who gives you this right? You have a very overinflated opinion of yourself. No self-respecting real scientist would behave like you do.

What have you censored in this article already, claiming the source isn't "reliable"? Well simple historical factual data from Jerry Clark, acknowledged as on of the premiere historians on the subject, more historical factual data from Ted Bloecher, who wrote a very scholarly, 200 page review of UFO reports from 1947 from newspapers of the time, thoughts and theories supporting the ETH (presented as such, not as facts) by theoretical physicists Michio Kaku and Bernard Haisch, and long-time NASA aerospace engineer John Schuessler's simple historical polling data on attitudes toward UFOs and the ETH among the well-educated and scientific groups (any polling results even moderately favorable to the ETH you, of course, censored from the article). Why aren't these reliable sources? Oh, because they supposedly support "UFO devotee fantasies" and because you say so.

Just today, you censored rebuttal arguments by physicist Dr. Bruce Maccabee to skeptical "explanations" of the Kenneth Arnold sighting. Why? Your usual disingenous reason--Maccabee you declare not to be a "reliable source" then delete his counterarguments--no discussion, no warnings, no nothing. Yes, even the incredibly stupid "pelicans" argument of non-scientist, British civil serveant James Easton becomes more "reliable" than a PhD physicist like Maccabee.

What stays in unopposed in this article? Some totally fraudulent statement from a fellow skeptic, Matheson, that the ETH was never considered before 1947--WRONG! This was previously rebutted with historical facts, but you censored the rebuttals and left Matheson in. How is it that Matheson is a "reliable source" while the factual counter-history become "unreliable"? Unfavorable scientific polling results to the ETH you left in (while deleting the favorable ones plus also the strong interest to UFOs displayed by even those who didn't favor the ETH). You also then added your own blatant POV comments that scientists didn't support the ETH. When I asked for even one "reliable source" to support that statement, you used yourself. We need "reliable sources" but you don't. You know its true, therefore it is true.

You have a long history of totally unjustifiable article censorship and making no effort to work with other editors in good faith. You are nothing but an unrepetent vandal and should have your editing privileges permanently removed. Dr Fil (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about this page, though I watch it. However, you might be interested in this link- intended perhaps for the situation, though I don't know, and haven't read this thread [3]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Martinphi, I thought something like that might turn out. I don't think "Science"Apologist head might be turned with reasonable arguments, but let me still make this point: there is no such thing as completely neutral source. All the text written by humans might be considered biased one way or another. The point is how much they are biased. If somebody can point out serious errors on the sources of this article the situation might be different. But even then those texts wouldn't need to be censored - you could point out on article that the validity of sources are disputed. ScienceApologist, please don't take this to the bitter end. Those times when it was ok to burn inconvenient books are long gone. You just can't succeed with that attitude. 89.27.11.114 (talk) 11:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

All you need to do is reference your claims with reliable sources and we can include them in the article! ScienceApologist (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a hunch that, while SA is under sanction, we need to bear in mind that WP is meant to be a mainstream source. I would think that a lot of mainstream sources discuss this subject. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the page contained 2 surveys which both said that no more than 10% of the scientific community supported ETH and most of the rest of the page was about pop-culture. You can't spell it out any clearer. 1973, 10% support, 1977, even less. That blows SA's arguments out of the water. As do the polls showing public belief. It's all spelled out.

I think that what SA is seeing is the sections on pop culture. I've observed before that SA will often ask for mainstream science when confronted with pop culture. The idea that what people believe from watching too much TV, or what Hollywood puts in their films because it sells ticket can have little or nothing to do with mainstream science, and equally often cannot be cited from mainstream science.

In order to get some order form this chaos, I'd like to remind users that admin have previously ruled on situations like this before, where people are confusing pop culture with science, and to direct any interested readers attention to This Page in which admins have specifically ruled that all significant opinions must be included in order for a page to be neutral, This section in which admin have stated that the purpose of a page is to discuss the controversy, not to reach "a correct conclusion", and this section in which admin have Okayed the inclusion of things that exist outside of mainstream science.

perfectblue (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand perfectblue's edits which served to basically remove any reference to the fact that this idea is pseudoscientific and instead shifted the focus onto UFO-fan clubs. Since the term is extraterrestrial hypothesis it is obvious that science needs to come into play. If we want to rewrite the article from the perspective that this is purely a pop-culture phenomenon with no scientific backing (like pet rock) then we'll have to find sources for the supposition that no one takes this to be a serious hypothesis (like no one believes a pet rock is actually living). ScienceApologist (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we ask for mediation [[4]] to get more opinions about changes made by SA. DrFil, could you do it as you probably have the best knowledge of the situation? 89.27.11.114 (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to mediation. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, guys. It seems a little unscientific to claim that no one takes this to be a serious hypothesis, as ScienceApologist does. Actually, if any of the UFO sightings is real (that is, if it's not a natural phenomenon or a hoax) then the most logical explanation is that it has extraterrestrial origin. It's becoming harder and harder, as time pass, to claim that any unusual craft is a government thingie, so, if some UFO is a craft, and the craft has none of the characteristics of current technology for flying objects, it is probably an extraterrestrial machine. Btw, I think the probabilities of an extraterrestrial craft coming to visit Earth are infinitesimal and that all UFO sightings are hoaxes or a fashion that makes people to believe in what they wish, but that's just my opinion.

There are other, more solid arguments, that show that extraterrestrial intelligent life is truly hard to find, as the Project Ozma and its derivatives show, which could be included in the article (and, in this article, I discover some evidence about how hard is to find terrestrial intelligent lifeforms). Some comments on the Fermi paradox could be useful. There is also the work of Anthony Stafford Beer and Noam Chomsky about fashions and conspiracies that could be referenced somehow (altough it does not even appear on Beer's article, btw), for example, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. For me, this work shows how futile is to try to reach a scientific conclusion from polls.

Certainly, this article shows that some people believe that knowledge should be restricted (sorry if that bothers you, SA) when they believe it's false. I believe that an Encyclopedia, no matter the medium, should show all what people thinks, stating who they are. If the thoughts are wrong, there is no better way to prove its "wrongness" than by publishing them. I'm convinced that the ETH, to this date, has been supported mainly by UFO "believers": the article could show that. It's a little moronic to try to show that it has the support of scientific data. You will not get data to support any theory from polling scientists (except when arguing about theories about what the scientists think). Even if 100% of scientists believe in ETH it does not make the hypothesis true, it's evidences what science is made of. For example, people argued about the Loch Ness Monster for ages. When the Surgeon's photo was declared a hoax, its credibility diminished a lot. I wonder why a similar approach is not taken by us in this article. There is nothing worse for an encyclopedia than people that believe they understand the issue at hand but do not read about it. So, let's stop citing people and start to cite facts. Perhaps what this article needs are some figures about the number of sightings, the number of proved non-extraterrestrial sightings, and, if some evidence about ETH exists, its inclusion and comments on its authenticity. AFAIK many evidences about ETH presented during the past century have been declared hoaxes, absence of comments about them in this article shows that few people has researched enough before adding something to it. It's also enchanting (for me), and I miss some comments about it in the article, the way that the assumed technology and explanations behind the ETH have changed since the XIXth century, from crafts that looked somehow like steam locomotives to crafts that seem extracted from science fiction movies. Same goes for the pictures and movies: as technology has improved, the pictures had also improved. --Ciroa (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegedly using alleged too much

How many times do we want to say alleged in this article? I mean fair enough, its an obscure topic but christ, we get the picture. Serious cleaning up needed. 203.201.138.206 (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Disparaged

I removed the line "This hypothesis is widely disparaged in the scientific community" from the lead paragraph. WIkipedia articles are not the place for making unsupported broad claims. Besides, the sentence was self contradictory ("is disparaged, and a number of committies have been set up to study it") ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Who speaks for the "scientific community"?

"The hypothesis has little support in the scientific community, due to lack of empirical evidence." According to whom? Inferred from what research into 'support'? Who was the research by, where was it reported? Where can the reader verify what, exactly, was said in relevant sources? Holon (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh-oh. Looks like we have run into the same issue again on another page. I'm going to contact you on your user page to try to come up with some approaches to working this out amicably. Locke9k (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

To be clear in case we decide to use this page for an RFC, I believe that, given the lack of current publications about or referencing earlier articles on this hypothesis, that it is appropriate to include in the intro a clear, succinct statement to the effect that the hypothesis lacks support from the scientific community. From our debate on the UFO article, I understand that you disagree with this perspective for well intentioned reasons, and I do not believe, after much attempt to find one, that there is a compromise position that correctly represents the present state of knowledge. As I said, I'll work with you on your talk page as to the best way to proceed from here. Locke9k (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

POV fork?

Its beginning to seem to me like this page in its present form may constitute a POV fork with respect to the page Extraterrestrial life. That page essentially presents the mainstream view of the subject. This one seems to have become an extensive foray into purported support for the Extraterrestrial hypothesis, and seems to presently be given undue weight with respect to the treatment there. It seems to me that this is a serious problem. For example, there is already a section there on Beliefs in extraterrestrial life in the modern era. If the scientific search for life section in that article can be adequately covered by less than two pages, it seems like to satisfy due weight the extraterrestrial hypothesis should receive far less coverage, perhaps just as a small section in that article. Locke9k (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Like it or not, whether it's supported by current science, this is an important cultural phenomenon, and deserves to be examined from different angles. Kortoso (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference #1 is outdated

Reference #1 is outdated. Too lazy to fix it myself (or in fact, too sleepy and too easily distracted with a memory that is a rarely triggered - so tomorrow this is all forgotten). Enjoy - I will bookmark this post to see if it's hated and/or deleted, so that I will know whether I shall quit posting amateur, uninformed posts like this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.192.235 (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Relax - I've fixed it for you. Skeptic2 (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Religionists

"Religionists attack ETH as, due to the lack of solid evidence, ETH requires belief which contradicts the doctrine of many religious faiths[5]. Even more so, according to most creation myths, insert deity of preference created the Earth and Heaven(s) leaving no space for Extraterrestrial Planets."

I really haven't heard of many religionists attacking ETH. If anything they support it. From what I've learned when I was part of a religionist religion, they support the idea that aliens do exist. I recall learning that "God" had created numerous planets, as numerous as the sands on the earth....or something like that. And on those planets, were human beings like us that "God" had created.

I used to be LDS, that's definitely a religionist organization. :-)

I think the "religionist" part of this article should be taken out. The reference to the above quoted entry in the article doesn't support it anyway.

-Trevor M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.158.47 (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)