Talk:Unidentified flying object

At least one workgroup needs to be assigned.

Metadata here

Constable comment

As this is obviously a contoversial subject, I need everyone to pay attention to our rules of CZ:Professionalism and make sure to refrain from remarks that will be percieved as {{civil}} and {{inflammatory}}. And, please {{no complaints}} about others. Do understand that these rules apply to everyone equally, including editors and officials. I encourage authors to cooperate with the gentle guidance of Editors. Editors, I encourage you to be gentle. I will not be editing this article or involving myself in any of the disputes and will remain as neutral as humanly possible in performing this constable duty. D. Matt Innis 12:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Gentleness is a scarce resource after repeated reverts, unexplained deletions, incorrect revision of citations, and decidedly non-neutral writing on what we now learn, from Milt's talk page, is "ufology". Howard C. Berkowitz 00:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Not Defending Ufology. I am defending the tolerance of accepted facts. Facts are facts. You can not ignore them. At one time people believed the Earth was flat, and some people still do, but most people now accept the fact the Earth is round. It was proven to be fact and we all accept it as fact. At one time Galileo proposed theories that the Catholic Church found the earth heretical. Later his facts proved to be correct and we accept it as fact. I presented a fair, objective article based on facts. The facts were supported with footnotes. I even provided a link for you to read. When last checked CUFOS articles meet a high standard of scientific research. Authors are typically doctorate level and the jury panel is probably of the same caliber. If you like, you can email or call them to confirm what I wrote since you are so eager to establish facts. I wonder if other authors have had to meet such a high standard of writing caliber here at Citizendium.

Also, I am not sure where you managed to drag up WP in this discussion. None of the stuff I have used even used WP (and I presume you mean Wikipedia) in this discussion.

As far as Wikipedia is concerned I have written one article for them.

Finally, I apologize for using shorthand for CZ. I guess I should have written Citizendium. OK Citizendium Guide. I thought CZ was the appropriate shorthand here. I apologize for my innocent error.

I've tried hard to be friendly, collaborative and cooperative. I am the new kid on the block and I know it. It sure would have been nice to have had a little help instead of out running road blocks and criticism.

Where I have written at wikiHow (yes the spelling is correct) the environment is far more encouraging of new authors. We go out of our way to send personalized welcome messages, offer assistance with writing, and respect someone who is actively writing an article. We also allow new authors to write and then we gently edit. I have gently edited over 5,000 articles based on my writing skills and understanding of wiki syntax. I came to Citizendium to stretch my wings a bit and exercise my mind. I love writing how-to articles, but I also love the challenge of researching; and writing articles offered at Citizendium.

Just some things to think about...and finally here's a link to wikiHow statistics and it is fact based [1] or [2] or [3] US statistics only.

Note: I started this message earlier but had to re-post as someone had edited the current Citizendium discussion page. Mary Ash 04:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)MA

"Also, I am not sure where you managed to drag up WP in this discussion. None of the stuff I have used even used WP (and I presume you mean Wikipedia) in this discussion. " You cited it as a source for several statements. Do I need to get this from the history?

"I am defending the tolerance of accepted facts. Facts are facts. You can not ignore them." All facts need contextualization and validation. You said "When last checked CUFOS articles meet a high standard of scientific research. Authors are typically doctorate level and the jury panel is probably of the same caliber." Sorry, I have read several of the data bases, and I do not find them to be at a high level of engineering or science research, as, for example, the level of discussion in the 1997 symposium.

"If you like, you can email or call them to confirm what I wrote since you are so eager to establish facts." Frankly, I don't like the tone of that -- but I looked at assorted databases and essentially found nothing but anecdotal witness reports -- not even time or location correlation.

"I wonder if other authors have had to meet such a high standard of writing caliber here at Citizendium." I certainly hope so. You might want to review some of the history of Approved articles and how the details can be argued in tremendous detail, with much rewriting. It is fair to say that I've written a few articles here, and such things as measurement and signature intelligence, electronic warfare, and rating raw intelligence very much deal with the criteria for reliable observation. As I remember, the thing holding up approval for the Battle of Dien Bien Phu is a question about the equipment in specific artillery strongpoints.

I'm not asking anything of you I wouldn't expect others to ask of me. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Article moved from mainspace

I have of the lastest version of this article to Draft space and moved the last version written by User:Mary Ash to a separate space at Unidentified flying object/Mary Ash where she can work independently. This is a procedure that does have precedent, but has not been used often. It is my hope that time will heal all wounds and collaboration may continue. I will continue to monitor the talk pages of both articles. Please keep all conversation CZ:Professionalism. Thanks for your understanding and co-operation. D. Matt Innis 00:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, such a procedure was invoked by Editor ruling and carried out by Constables, not Constables acting unilaterally. Mary Ash has defied Editor rulings, a behavioral problem. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I can make an Editor ruling, or Milt can do so. It is unprecedented to move an article variant to a personal subarticle in namespace. You may move it to User: Mary Ash/Unidentified flying object, and do not link it. Please delete the UFO/Mary Ash. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I've archived this talk page

I've archived the talk page in hopes that we can start fresh. D. Matt Innis 00:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Protest

Matt, you've also archived discussions that had to do with community discussion about the scope of the article. I ask that the talk page be restored, and you reflect on whether you may be trampling on the rights of other Citizens to protect a defiant newcomer. Do not protect the article page; Engineering Editors have the matter in hand.

Please restore, to mainspace, the last version restored by Milton Beychok. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Matt, I request you move the "Draft" article back to mainspace, and Unidentified flying object/Mary Ash to User Talk: Mary Ash/UFO. This restores our usual naming convention. At present, the /Mary Ash version does not meet the requirements of mainspace, and it is simply confusing to have two versions. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I won't move it myself once a Constable has done it, but please restore proper naming conventions. /Draft implies there is an Approved version, which there is not. On a practical basis, when I create wikilinks to internal sections of the main article, I'm having to include /draft. If the article is ever Approved, that leaves much room for ambiguous linking. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should be done. I don't think I can do it myself, since I've been involved in this article's editing and arguing. Hayford Peirce 16:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ufology, MUFON

First, it appears that there is something called "ufology", apparently that of which skeptics are skeptical...I think. It really needs to be defined.

I have moved the following text here, regarding the Mutual UFO Network:

One of the publications is a scholarly review and is called the Journal of UFO Studies.

Scholarly by what definition? What general learned organizations recognize it? Could someone familiar with a citation impact data base verify that it is cited in general literature?

Hynek appointed Dr. Mark Rodeghier to head CUFOS. MUFON collects UFO reports, sponsors a yearly UFO symposium and offers a monthly journal called The MUFON UFO Journal. MUFON has written and published a recognized UFO investigation manual.

I suppose that if one put it in front of me, I'd recognize it to be a UFO investigation manual. "Recognized", however, implies more than self-recognition. In the article on interrogation, there are examples of widely recognized reference in criminal investigation and witness reports. Is this comparable?

MUFON field investigators are required to study the MUFON Field Investigator's Manual and pass a test before they can investigate UFO reports.

Ah, but who tests MUFON? Howard C. Berkowitz 01:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Protocols and manuals have to start some place. The CZ user guide was written for CZ users. It is expected that users learn how to use the guide. It is accepted as being "the guide".

Scientists set up testing protocols, and they follow standard procedures, and they are accepted. For along time doctors treated patients without changing bloodstained clothing or washing their hands. It was accepted protocol. Later it was discovered the doctors unknowingly spread germs to their patients caused by accepted protocol at the time.

MUFON has established a set protocol for dealing with investigations. Here is a Wikipedia link telling about scientific protocol: [4] I do believe MUFON has established a good protocol for examining UFO cases based on the link given.

You have to draw the line some place when it comes to all things and you have to accept that MUFON is trying to appropriately investigate reported UFO cases.

Mary Ash 02:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Mary Ash

Center for UFO Studies offers a peer reviewed (juried) journal referenced in the article.

See The Journal of UFO Studies is the only refereed ::scientific journal dealing exclusively with the UFO phenomenon. A full table of contents is provided for both series. (Click on a year to see the contents of that year's issue} Link: [5]

I have read the journal in the past but not recently. The articles were rather boring but very scientific. LOL!...said Mary Ash (talk)

First, you have referred before to a CZ: User Guide. Note that link is in red. There is no such single document.

Second, scientific testing protocols are set out in peer-reviewed journals and subject to validation. Just as an example, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4098.txt is a testing protocol that I coauthored and was subject to independent validation. We have an Approved article on the strict process of randomized controlled trials. Rating raw intelligence also deals with a representative categorization system.

Again, I remind you that CZ does not consider WP authoritative. As has been pointed out, WP doesn't consider WP authoritative.

In no way do I, or CZ, "have to accept MUFON is trying to appropriately investigate reported UFO cases." This is another case where you tell CZ what it must do, such as accepting your work in progress flag, your reverts, and your deletes without explanation. First, by your use of "skeptic", there seems to be a distinction between "unidentified flying object" and "ufology". Second, my initial searches show that MUFON is essentially self-validating. I can't find their reports cited in general scientific journals, and the reports come across as anecdotal and not meeting minimum engineering standards of validation.

Your link to the Journal of UFO Studies gives no information about the refereeing process, the independence, or quality of referees.

" For along time doctors treated patients without changing bloodstained clothing or washing their hands. It was accepted protocol. Later it was discovered the doctors unknowingly spread germs to their patients caused by accepted protocol at the time." Umm...yes. Ignaz Semmelweis, who died tragically in 1865. Anything more recent? Oh, I suppose we could go to Lister or Halsted.

Make up your mind if this article is about unidentified flying objects or a defense of ufology. It can't do both and meet CZ: Neutrality Policy. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I should add that as an Engineering Editor that contributed to the article, I could not nominate it for approval without the agreement of two other Editors. That doesn't preclude me from guiding, and even making rulings, within my expertise.

Milt Beychok is also an Engineering Editor, who has not made other than copy edits to the article. He has called for your being banned for repeatedly defying Editor rulings. I have not yet done that, but I am quite willing to say that some of the sources of information are self-validating at best, and you have repeatedly removed other, sourced contributions without discussion.

I am going to rule that the "Skeptics" section be removed until there is a clear definition of what the skeptics are supposed to be skeptical about. At the present time, I regard many of your statements in violation of CZ: Neutrality Policy in emphasizing UFOlogy organizations, which are not the subject of the article. I'm not even going to try to edit your WIP article with its dump of MUFON material, and do not recognize it as a legitimate part of mainspace. A protest has been placed about Dr. Innes' action as infringing on Editor responsibilites. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Protest acknowledged. Meanwhile, until we have a resolution, anyone can continue working to improve this article while the powers that be resolve the editorial dilemma as well as determine the repercussion for my actions or lack of actions. D. Matt Innis 03:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Matt, please acknowledge whether you will abide by the ruling of Engineering Editors, perhaps not banning but certainly directives on content and style (e.g., rewriting citations, removing text without discussion). I hope "anyone can continue working" doesn't mean that you are telling Editors they have no special authority. Remember, I'm not the only Editor concerned with this. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Of course, Howard. All the same rules still apply. Please remain Professional and be civil, refrain from complaining about other users, and do not write anything inflammatory. Authors need to recognize the authority of editors and Editors gently-guide. Editors need to be familiar with Low level Administration of Authors. Especially the part about helping authors (which Milt certainly did). I assure you, had Milt asked me to block any author, I would (he knows I have before), but the the final determination is at the discretion of the constable. I need to be able to document why and as I consider extenuating circumstances, I can't execute that request in good conscience considering the behavior on this page. I assume Larry designed it that way for a very good reason. I suppose we'll soon find out. That is not saying that I won't do it under new or different circumstances as required by the rules. D. Matt Innis 03:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I point to the first entry on the talk page, Talk:Unidentified flying object/Archive 1#Added metadata and some notes, in which I offered gentle guidance. Indeed, I created articles, such as extraterrestrial intelligence, to help contextualize. Later, I questioned MUFON sole sourcing for Talk:Unidentified flying object/Archive 1#Shapes; note that the peer-reviewed material that I added to the article, dealing with the perceptual psychology of shape recognition, was removed without initial discussion.

I explained that the initial author does not set the scope of the article, which was not accepted. "The article is about reported characteristics of what UFOs look like. " Hayford and I tried to explain that CZ writing style was not what the new author believed, in Talk:Unidentified flying object/Archive 1#AI disagree: This is a straight up objective style or reporting. While Hayford is not an Editor, I fully support his guidance on style.

With a later revert, the statement was made "Removed: To recognize a previously seen object, the visual system must overcome the variability in the object's appearance caused by factors such as illumination and pose. Developments in computer vision suggest that it may be possible to counter the in£uence of these factors, by learning to interpolate between stored views of the target object, taken under representative combinations of viewing conditions. Daily life situations, however, typically require categorization, rather than recognition, of objects. Due to the open-ended character of both natural and arti¢cial categories, categorization cannot rely on interpolation between stored examples. [6]

"Unneeded as the NUFORC cites witness reports. Only the witness can evaluate what they saw and I am sure most can figure out the difference between a circle, triangle or light. Also, Davenport does weed out obvious hoaxes. "

Sorry, but I cannot accept blanket acceptance of NUFORC. You will note that I am adding material to the beginning of the article from the 1997 symposium on physical evidence -- which Vallee attended -- and will be adding material from intelligence disciplines. I'm afraid, that after examining NUFORC and other ufology group reports, they do not rise above the anecdotal level. From that symposium and other sources, I am giving reasonable criteria. This article is not about ufology and the ufology groups do not set the rules of evidence -- that is a ruling on which I will expand if necessary. The statement "I am sure most can figure out the difference between a circle, triangle or light" is simply not accurate.

Howard C. Berkowitz 04:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to discount police reports, science reports or any report because the witness can not identify a shape? Or two witnesses reported seeing something slightly different? The National UFO Reporting Center reports are accurate data as they reflect the amount and type of reports submitted to the center. It is the best resource for such things. The government no longer collects UFO data after Project Bluebook was closed. NUFORC is the best resource for collected UFO data. If you examine the reports, you will see that Davenport does note potential hoaxes. He also states on his web site that obvious hoaxes will be removed. See: [6] Supplement the NUFORC data with yours but realize the NUFORC data is an excellent source, and probably one of the best sources, for privately collected UFO reports.

Mary Ash 04:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Mary Ash

Discount? For what purpose? What does the NUFORC data establish other than people saw things they can't explain, and for which there isn't enough data for scientific analysis? Look at the discussion of luminosity, with Vallee as a participant, on page 191 of the Physical Evidence report, and the issues of analysis of isotropic versus anisotropic light sources. That discussion is at what I would call a reasonable scientific level -- which all agreed proved nothing. Look at the desire for spectrometric data at Hessdalen. Mark Rodeghier of CUFOS participated.

What does a policeman seeing a light establish beyond that simple fact? That's a serious question. The most basic principle of photogrammetry is triangulation. You can't triangulate from a single point. If there are multiple witnesses, is there a plausible geometry that reconciles their observation? If there isn't, it isn't a multiple-source confirmation. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the amount and type of UFO reports filed at the National UFO Reporting Center? The statistics were to show the amount of UFOs reported and the top shapes reported. Do the things you mention show how many reports are filed with the National UFO Reporting Center. Or the shapes reported. I think not. Both types of evidence, what you found, and what I wrote would help flesh out the article and make it better. That is what collaborative editing is all about. Working together to make an article the best it can be. Also, it helps encourage authors as they feel like they contributed something to the common good. Mary Ash 05:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Mary Ash

We don't share the same idea of collaborative editing, at least with respect to the idea of expert guidance. I simply don't see what the raw numbers of reports at the NUFORC add value to the question of UFOs -- not ufology, which isn't the subject of this article. The article is about unidentified objects and how they can be identified. I'm sorry, but I'm describing basic engineering analysis of phenomena, and I'm not going to promote the inclusion of statistics of no obvious use. Tell me why they are valuable to the subject of the article; as a newcomer, are you really sure you know what is valued in a CZ article or what sort of collaborative work is of use here?

One of the roles of an Editor is to stop what seem to be never-ending content arguments, of the sort that are frustrating at Wikipedia. Unless I see convincing reasons why these raw statistics are meaningful, I rule that they aren't germane to the article. I believe I have given you abundant examples of what is expected as meaningful analysis. If you don't know why photogrammetry is essential to validating observations, I can't help that. Howard C. Berkowitz 07:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Mary and Howard. Mary, it appears that Howard has considered your input and has decided not to include it. As an author, you have to accept his decision and move on from there. Meanwhile, there are avenues of appeal that you can attempt. Our current dispute resolution process is demarcated here. Notice that it requires that you move on to something else while the decision process proceeds. So, here on this talk page, I'm enforcing the directive to move on to something else. D. Matt Innis 11:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to do it myself, but I see absolutely no reason why there couldn't be separate articles on Ufology and on MUFON -- both of them unquestionably exist, one as a cultural phenomenon/interest group/area of study/area of interest that attracts many people around the world; the other as sort of think tank. Articles would have to be done in the usual CZ adherence-to-encyclopedic standards, not gee-whiz advocacy, but it would certainly be possible. Hayford Peirce 15:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Have just checked and WP has an article on Ufology that begins: "Ufology (pronounced /juːˈfɒlədʒiː/) is a neologism that is coined to describe the collective efforts of those who study reports and associated evidence of unidentified flying objects (UFOs). While ufology does not represent an academic field of research and is widely described as a pseudoscience, UFOs have been subject to various investigations over the years by governments, independent groups, and scientists." That seems like a reasonable enough start to me. There is also an article on MUFON that begins: "The Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) is an American non-profit organization that investigates cases of reported UFO sightings. It is one of the oldest and largest UFO-investigative organizations in the United States." Can't fault that one, either. Hayford Peirce 16:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hayford, both suggestions make perfectly good sense. In this article, I have, indeed, included technical observations from people associated with ufology organizations. The politics and social dynamics of ufology is, however, too complex for an article that is talking about the definition and characterization of UFOs; the emphasis is more on methodology than raw statistics.

CUFOS and MUFON, as well as others, could well have articles, and it would be appropriate to describe their databases there. Until, however, there is a way to correlate anecdotal reports with more scientific analysis, I just don't see how that adds to the article. Note that scientific and engineering information from people affiliated with CUFOS is in the 1997 symposium.

That symposium is quite technical, but I think there's value in contrasting the directions in the MUFON investigator manual to bring a tape measure, versus the Norwegian Hessdelen Project that "involved three stations with observers and their cameras, some cameras fitted with gratings to obtain spectroscopic information. At the principal station, observers used the following equipment: cameras, some fitted with gratings; an infrared viewer; a spectrum analyzer; a seismograph; a magnetometer; radar equipment; a laser; and a Geiger counter." The MUFON manual isn't available online and the level of guidance it gives thus is something I can't evaluate. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely that *this* article shouldn't have more than mentions of them, along with other related matters. It should be like an article about the Republican Party that briefly mentions right-wing think tanks and has mentions of, and links to, separate articles about the Hoover Institution and the Club for Growth or whatever they're called. Hayford Peirce 16:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, the anecdotal observer reports can be mentioned, but I think this is the place where the more technical reports need to go. While there may be few of this type, in my personal opinion, they deserve the most attention, such as "one case for which [military] radar records were released occurred on June 5, 1996 at about 2:30 p.m. Six employees, including radar operators, of the military ATC at Dubendorf, Switzerland observed from their building in Klothen a large silvery disk apparently at a distance of 1700 meters. It appeared to be rotating and wobbling at an altitude of 1300 to 2000 meters. There was a corresponding recording of a target by three radar devices." This, to me, is far more significant than hundreds of people reporting lights with no further detail. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Remember the Hudson Valley lights a number of years ago? Plus similar lights over Phoenix a few years ago? There was also a hoohah about enormously brilliant lights seen in the darkened ocean around New Zealand either by astronauts in orbit or high-flying airline pilots. Turned out to be some sort of night fishing by commercial fishermen used high-power beams for some reason or other. Hayford Peirce 17:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

cellphone cameras

I had already begun to think about this myself, then a week or so ago I saw a column somewhere (NYT? Scientific American?) about the decline of photographed UFOs. You'd think that with a billion or so people all over the world now equipped with digital cameras there would be *millions* of high-quality, irrefutable photographs of UFOs all over the place. Instead, what do we get? Nothing. If that Swiss incident happened today there would be thousands of photos taken by all the people in the neighborhood. Except me, of course -- I still don't have one of the damn things. And I doubt if Milt does, either. So if we're ever sitting on his terrace in Newport Beach some afternoon sipping martinis and a UFO flies down to investigate us and hover for a while, we won't have any means of proving that we had visitors.... Hayford Peirce 17:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Just remembered -- it was a brief semi-editorial in the NYT at the very bottom of the *real* editorials.... Hayford Peirce 17:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can find it, you might want to add it to the cultural effects section.

Evidentiary photography isn't only a matter of equipment availability. For example, there's a natural tendency to center the most interesting part of the subject. If I saw a UFO, I hope I would remember training and make very sure that while I should get a centered view, I should do everything I could to get some known object into the frame. Having a ground reference offers enormous benefits for scaling, positioning, and other photogrammetric analysis.

That cellphone cameras can capture motion may have great potential for understanding flight paths. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It ought to be easy to find, it was only about 10 days ago. I remember reading that a lot of the exposures of hoaxes involving flying pie plates etc taken in the backyard depended on background analysis and references. Hayford Peirce 17:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)