Jump to content

Talk:Ufology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Clotten (talk | contribs) at 20:55, 2 March 2017 (→Rampant Bias by Wiki editors re: UFOs: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Paul R. Hill's book Unconventional flying objects

It's a book which provides a math and science based analysis of various UFO cases. Hill was a leading Nasa scientist in the 40s to 70s..his book is clearly a math and science based analysis. I'm surprised there is very little info on this man and his book. I think that book is the gold standard of UFO case analysis because it doesn't go around day dreaming, but uses clear cut math and physics to dissect the cases. I think there should be a paragraph dedicated to that book.

There's already a section on this book in his biographical article and this article is so cluttered I don't think it's appropriate. That should definitely be considered for a reference though. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does this need re-editing

'United Kingdom

The British UFO Research Association (BUFORA) is the largest and oldest of the active British UFO organizations. It traces its roots to the London UFO Research Association, founded in 1959, which merged with the British UFO Association (BUFOA) to form BUFORA in 1964.

Firstly the article claims that BUFORA is the oldest active Brisitsh UFO organisation but the Aetherius Society has also been dubbed by the media as the oldest UFO organisation in Great Britain, being founded in 1955 by George King. Sources for this can be provided if neccessary. Yogiadept (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

old talk

Need some help here. - Sigg3.net 19:42, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What sort? People will help if they can Moriori 21:54, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
This is a great field. Going to need some help. This sentence is wrong though: especially claims that some UFOs are extraterrestrial vehicles manned by aliens, since UFO Norge are trying to get international approval as "real scientists" (if such things should exist), so they don't jump to any conclusions. Most of the cases they've handled (something that is incredibly normal) are observations of the moving moon when driving a car... But they've got observations of "saucers" that were confirmed by military radars as well. I changed especially to also. Thanks anyway. - Sigg3.net 23:10, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Changed no physical evidence to any conclusive evidence, since physical evidence HAS been found and published. - Sigg3.net 23:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I'll try to make it clearer on the page. There IS evidence for UFOs, including film which I have seen, for flying objects that were and are unidentified. But, no-one has EVER produced physical evidence of any UFO of extraterrestrial origin. ( I'm talking physical evidence, not claims. If you think otherwise, then list the urls here please). If someone ever does, then Wikipedia will need a new page headed "ETs" {Extraterrestrial Vehicles, fancy that), because, being identified, they could no longer be UFOs. Moriori 00:02, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
I think you miss the point. Not all ufology are concentrated on ET's. UFO Norge has made research on magnetic disturbances etc. (See "The Hessdal Project"). But there are way too many loonies out there too... - Sigg3.net
No, I don't miss the point at all. I know ufology should not exclusively concentrate on ETs but the perception of the pubic is that it does. The problem is that if several people independently report a spectacular UFO sighting, the media will get some UFO proponent on camera who will say aha, it's a flying saucer with little green men from outer space. They won't get someone from CSICOP or UFO Norge who would say, aha, here we have reliable reports of a flying object which is unidentified, so we will try to find an explantion for it. Even if they did find an explanation, it would be a non story so it wouldn't get publicity, and there would be those who continued to tout it as ET. Moriori 23:17, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
You're quite right about that, but I don't see why this should change the article. When most people hear about astrology they think about witches with crystalballs, but this is also considered science (to a degree). - Sigg3.net 23:35, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is there any good reason this article shouldn't become a section of UFO? - David Gerard 11:55, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

A lot could be said about the UFO subculture which could fall under Ufology... Dysprosia 11:56, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That's the thing - they're not really separate subjects. A lot of the stuff and links in UFO are about the subculture. And is "ufology" a science, the UFO subculture or what? I'm strongly tempted to merge real soon - David Gerard 12:22, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
No, no, no and no. Have a look at UFO Norge's webpage, for instance. UFO-NORWAY is open to any and all hypothesis and theories which may represent possible solutions to the UFO enigma, and will not attribute unidentified reports to any particular theory. They're really trying to open the scientific society to the fact that UFOs are not a product of (crazy) peoples imagination, but measurable on radiation-instruments and viewable on radar, for instance. So, placing them under UFO subculture is wrong, hence Ufology must stand as an article of its own. - Sigg3.net 08:59, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
In that case please separate them out a lot better. It's not in the least clear at the moment. - David Gerard 13:10, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. - Sigg3.net 13:54, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Isn't UFO an acronym for Unidentified Flying Object? Then why is this page advocating the word {You-eff-oh-olo-jist}? Should this article merge into maybe Xenology, which is currently a stub?

Help

Hi guys. I could use some help with this: The Disclosure Project NPC Conference--Striver 14:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible talked about this

The demons from heaven to earth come and have relations with the women of men to produce the Giant race both before and after the flood. It also says that the last days will be similar to the time of Noah. Therefore I expect the "demons" will take on flesh and come to earth again. These so called Aliens are demons and their father is the father of lies. So I would not *talk* to them but pray to God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.34.40 (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cats?

Why can't Ufology be in Category:Pseudoscience? ---J.S (T/C) 18:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because pseudoscience is conducted in the name of UFOlogy, doesn't mean UFOlogy is necessarily pseudoscience.
But it is though, I mean actual real science is based on fact and measurable evidence. There is no fact or measurable evidence for the existence of UFOs 82.46.47.172 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But i think you're wrong..there is a great deal about UFOs that has been measured and scientifically analyzed. I refer specifically to Paul R. Hill's book Unconventional flying objects. Hill was a leading Nasa scientist in the 40s to 70s..his book is clearly a math and science based analysis. Actually i'll make a request on this page to have info on it included either hereon the ufology page or on the ufo page. I really think you should read it, it's not your average ufo book.
Any scientific investigation undertaken that can't be proven or disproven by the Scientific Method is usually classed as a Pseudoscience, there's not much that is measurable in regards to UFO's, so I guess it would be reasonable to call it that. --Opacic (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paul R. Hill's book Unconventional flying objects. Hill was a leading Nasa scientist in the 40s to 70s..his book is clearly a math and science based analysis. Actually i'll make a request on this page to have info on it included either hereon the ufology page or on the ufo page. I really think you should read it, it's not your average ufo book.


  • Well for the above skeptics who don't read wiki pages:

"Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge."

==================

On Pseudoscience & Neologisms

==================

With particular reference to the question of pseudoscience, it should first be noted that the word "pseudoscience" is simply a technocratic euphemism for "illegitimate" and as such is little more than part of the skeptic's name-calling vocabulary, especially when used in a derogatory fashion, which is usually the case. Therefore its use should be considered as bias, and given far less attention, not only here, but in other articles as well, with any details of such criticism being allocated to the Pseudoscience entry, rather than the topic being discussed.

However, even if we accept that the use of labels such as pseudoscience are a valid commentary, according to Wikipedia's own definition of pseudoscience, "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific ...", then those who are performing the alledged pseudoscience must first "present it as science". Yet I see no quotes or references in this article to ufologists who have made the claim that ufology is science, or any references to data that skeptics claim ( with evidence as opposed to opinion ) that qualifies as pseudoscience. It seems more evident that some skeptic has simply labeled it as pseudoscience and we are left to take their word for it.

I will also point the editor's attention to the definition of ufology by the Ufology Society International, a ufology interest group that has been in existence for over 20 years, It is simple and to the point: "Ufology is the study of the UFO phenomenon." There is no claim by USI that ufology is science. USI does go on to point out the following: "Ufology is in and of itself neither science nor pseudoscience. It is a pursuit to gather knowledge that will lead to a true and comprehensive understanding of the UFO phenomenon. Certainly when this pursuit is undertaken by scientists who examine the available evidence with scientific tools and methods, there is no doubt that science is taking place." How can this be disputed? Also, in its "What Is Ufology" segment, an even older UFO interest group MUFON, does not make any claim that ufology is a science. Again, this points to an excessive focus on ufology as a pseudoscience in this article. It would have be sufficient to have simply said, "Some skeptics ( with references and a link to the Skeptics entry ) have labeled ufology as a pseudoscience."

By the way, it cannot be claimed that the USI definition is unworthy of inclusion because it is biased. If Wikipedia were to disallow all content derived from studies by those who do the studies, there would be no content at all. The definition of ufology by USI is just as valid as the definition of astrobiology as endorsed by astrobiologists. In fact, when examined objectively, the topic of astrobiology is just as much a quagmire as ufology, with no conclusive proof and plenty of theories, yet nobody calls astrobiology a pseudoscience or a neologism, even though both words were introduced during the 1950s and have been in use for over half a century.

Furthermore being classed as a neologism has the effect of marginalization ( a typical tactic of biased skeptics ), and there is no citation in this article to any definition of ufology that uses the phrase "neologism". Just like the word "pseudoscience", it has just been thrown in there as if it were fact. If this article has been tainted by bias in any way, it has been at the hands of unconstructive skeptics, or those who fail to recognize their tactics for what they are.

==================

End Pseudoscience & Neologisms

==================

Well it passes all these requirements. It would help if some of you read up about pseudoscience pay attention to the word UNIDENTIFIED and how these reports come about!Vufors (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UFOlogy certainly does not pass the test of "correcting and integrating previous knowledge", I doubt that it passes the test of "acquiring new knowledge", and only rarely does it pass the test of "investigating phenomena", since most of UFOlogy consists of repeating unsubstantiated claims and adding more speculation to them. Skeptic2 (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are two main strands to whether Ufology is pseudoscience

1) It is logical to assume that "sentient life having evolved once in the universe" it will evolve elsewhere. The "issue" is whether such "sentients-not-from-Earth" would come here, and, if so, what they would do with the planet and its inhabitants.

2) There are many "strange phenomena" that are not explicable by the viewer/collective wisdom "in the skies" (intentionally ambiguous). A proportion can be resolved (ball lightning, sun dogs, and other atmospheric phenomena, military and other craft whose existence is not generally known), dirigibles seen at peculiar angles, and the descriptions of some phenomena will be in the language/symbology that the describer knows, and thus capable of later misinterpretation - Halley's Comet on the Bayeaux Tapestry etc.

Ufology is an attempt to interpret the "otherwise unexplained items" of (2) in terms of an extrapolation of (1) that cannot presently be justified; and, in the context of "ancient alien visitors" that persons of X thousand years ago were not as ingenious as we are (rather than having different priorities/timescales, not recording everything that they did). Jackiespeel (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Someone wrote "There is no fact or measurable evidence for the existence of UFOs." This is a rather ignorant statement. This is one of the difficulties that comes up when those who are not actually scientists start forming opinions about scientific topics. Gingermint (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge UFO categorization

Popularity of UFOlogy?

Is it just me, or is UFOlogy considerably less popular in Western countries than it once was? When visiting a bookshop recently, I was struck by the fact that there were absolutely no UFO/alien books in the paranormal section at all, whereas there were countless books about ghosts, hauntings and the like. 217.155.20.163 12:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


That's a good thing. The fewer people that buy into this slop the better.
Agreed. --Opacic (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be inactual as of circa 2008 Apr, now UFOlogy is on advance, whether we like it or not. Said: Rursus ☻ 09:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation?

Is it pronounced you-eff-ology or you-fology? 74.106.20.73 21:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a proper pronunciation on the article seeing as the name is derived from an acronym. RooZ 13:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Ufology

This new article is unreferenced and poorly wikified, it may get deleted unless improved soon.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nein! Look again. Twas created at the end of April 2008. And it is pretty crappy as pointed out above, but I doubt it will get deleted because it could be referenced, probably, unless you guys are insane about that, which, judging from the majority of the content around here, you aren't.208.82.225.232 (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're not insane of course, it's just the world around us that doesn't understand our splendor! Said: Rursus ☻ 09:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected hoax section

Some very small WP:fringe is trying to perpetuate the article Atmospheric beast, a concept seemingly invented by this WP:fringe, not by Sagan as alleged. The section Atmosphere beast hypothesis is a typical example of this atmospheric beast mad ramblings, possibly referring to unrelated articles of unreason. I'll take a look, and if it appears that Atmospheric beast is some kind of "WP:OR" of the hoax type, then it will be instantly killed, and the Sagan part moved to some scifi article to where that text belongs. Said: Rursus ☻ 09:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do a search on Trever James Constable and critters. I'm surprised that's not in the Ab article. Doug Weller (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tested googling "Ivan T. Sanderson" and "Atmospheric beast" and got 7 bummer hits, either "info" copied from "Wikipedia" and list of "fortean" creatures where Ivan T. Sanderson was mentioned, but not connected with "Atmospheric beast" see Talk:Ivan T. Sanderson on why the Atmospheric beast has nothing to do with him. I'll take a look at that "Trevor James Constable" or variants. Said: Rursus ☻ 20:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following guys does not exist: Trevor James Constable, Trevor Constable, Trevor James, Trevor J. Constable on WP. The following combinations of "Atmospheric beast" with "Trevor something" gives 2 or fewer google hits, all copies or inspirations from WP: "Trevor James Constable": 2; "Trevor Constable": 1; "Trevor James": 2; "Trevor J. Constable": 2. The case for hoax strengthens. Said: Rursus ☻ 20:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following link support the sections' claims: UFOs OVER BURLINGTON WISCONSIN, but there are no Atmospheric beasts, the article I'm explicitly trying to kill. However: the link is from 2005. I'm going to track whether that WP section in question was written near in time to 2005. An ufologist named Trevor James Constable existed. Said: Rursus ☻ 20:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The section looked like this in 12 May 2006:
Sky Critter Hypothesis
The theory of Trevor James Contable (a.k.a. Trevor James) speculated that UFO sightings involve the sighting of exotic unknown life otherwise known as Sky Critters or Rods.
I'll restore it accordingly, removing later added desinformation and false links. The connexions alleged in Atmospheric beast, an invented name, don't exist. For now, and more after I've hunted down the beast! Said: Rursus ☻ 20:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Removed HOAX template, one source exist, however fringy. Said: Rursus ☻ 21:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So how about Atmospheric beast, AfD? Doug Weller (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very misleading phrase

"Even UFO cases that are exposed as hoaxes, delusions or misidentifications may still be worthy of serious study from a psychosocial point of view" -- This phrase is very misleading because it implies that the object of psychosocial research should be the "UFO cases" instead of the crazy people who talk about them. 66.65.129.159 (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient origins

One might add that although there's 3 traceable origins to UFOs in recent history, Zecharia Sitchin argues that there are archeological records, and ancient paintings, that depict UFOs. Knights spoke of "Shields in the sky" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.46.103 (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aliens eating people

Who says that? http://www.maar.us and http://www.ufocasebook.com Re.: Search: Alien Races/ Alien Species, Re.: Reptoids, and Re.: Greys claim that these aliens are known to these researchers to consume humans, and may explain why some people "go missing", "disappear". These should be placed in the category "Hostile aliens" in this article. Powerzilla (talk) 02:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only pointing out who claimed that aliens do eat people, nothing more, nothing less. Powerzilla (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick C. Crews

If anyone is interested, Frederick C. Crews has published a series of reviews of books on ufos at The New York Review of Books - [2] not free unfortunately. There's also some back-and-forth that looks pretty juicy. [3]. I'm going to spam this to a couple other pages too. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Explanation Found for UFOs

This site: [[4]] talks about a natural explanation found for UFOs.Agre22 (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Bogus Debunking

I think this article should somehow mention that the countering/debunking/rationalising of UFO reports can be very bogus. I mean, regardless of the actual case, media or even official explanations stretching to ridiculous extremities, on par with the worst believer nonsense : several hundred mph moving phenomem labeled "lenticular could", dozens of witnesses relegated to "stains in front of the eye", daylight close observations assimilated to "Venus mistaken" etc. Seems to me noticeable enough to be mentioned, but I just toss the idea here and let others do the confirm/refute/source work. Oh, and good luck on maintaining Wikipedia standards on such a hot topic. --Musaran (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's always interesting when speeds and distances are quoted for objects without any justification. Most people who think they've seen a UFO tend to misjudge both. There's no reason to believe the "measurements" they reported. By the way, Venus is bright enough to be seen in the daytime with the naked eye. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very true - and as long as you know *PRECISELY* where to look ...and preferably have a set of binoculars. Just sayin'. Tonybaldacci (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV

At present, this article is written in a tone and in a way that mainly gives credence to the "UFOs are real' viewpoint. Large sections, including the intro, seem to simply be trying to advocate for the legitimacy of this viewpoint or of UFOlogy in general. The mainstream scientific viewpoints are relegated to a relatively small section. A more balanced view should be given throughout, particularly in the intro. I am therefore adding the point-of-view template.Locke9k (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a total mess and needs a serious rewrite. It should be about ufology itself, and not go into excruciating details on alleged UFO cases and ET theories. 80.221.43.22 (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to help. It's been a mess for a while. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to translate the far superior German-language article. 80.221.43.22 (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully the article is now slightly more readable 80.221.43.22 (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit

I've just completed a copy edit and cleanup for this article. The current version of the article could definitely qualify as GA, and MAYBE FA (though it'll take more research) if someone were to do the following:

  • Expand the lead section to accommodate the length of the article
  • Tidy up the "Notable studies, panels and conferences in ufology"; maybe remove a few of the non-notable studies and publications, such as the RAND Corporation paper and maybe the two American press conferences, sort by decade or country instead of individual study or conference, or anything else.
  • Consistency. References are not in a consistent format, dates in the article and references switch from MM-DD-YYYY to DD-MM-YYYY occasionally (I've tried to switch everything I could catch to month-day-year), and some titles of publications are italicized / in quotations, while some are not (see here for the rules on italics, here for the rules on quotation marks).
  • Reorganize the placement of references in the text; they should always be placed after a full-stop or after a comma. I also recommend you avoid placing them after a comma unless you really want to specify what text the reference is targeting, or if there are many references for one sentence (I mean, you don't want fifteen references side-to-side).
  • Check out the Manual of Style for a few more pointers to correct. There is also a nice checklist to help out.

If there are are any questions, visit my talk page; I'd be glad to help out. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been noticing some deletions and suggestions for deletions of various pages related to UFOlogy.

And just as we find during times of sightings, we might be seeing some examples of misrepresentations, misinformation, or disinformation. I find this disturbing, and would like investigators and students of UFOlogy/Ufology to keep watch. I suggest/propose that this be an organized watch.

Examples of deletions (selected):

  • List of life forms. This was just deleted a few days ago. I requested that it be undeleted. It's back—for now. It may need some work.
  • Non-physical entity. Being considered for deletion. Needs more citations, and some rewriting to keep it from being a "synth". There is even a Project Page and its own Talk page, related to discussions about deletion.
  • Interdimensional being. Old deletion?
  • Interdimensional travel. Old deletion?
  • Missing time. Deletion proposed on the Talk page. There is NO WAY this should be deleted, but it is VERY sparse, and needs several citations to be added, as well as several more examples. (Currently, there is only 1 example listed, making the article seem "anecdotal". Not good.)
  • Others.

Example of misrepresentations/misinformation/disinformation (selected):

  • Phoenix Lights. I tried to make factual changes several months ago to this article, but my changes were Undone. I was ticked enough to go out and partially reread – and write notes in – the famous Dr. Kitei book, and watch a video about "The Phoenix Lights", just so that I could do two main things: 1) Fix confusing and false descriptions of various time orders of sightings. (The article made it seem like there were only two types of sightings to consider.) 2) Add citations regarding the CRAFT that people thought they saw. The article read like it was mostly if not ONLY lights, in spots in the article, which is simply not true. I found several pages in the book which refer to what was seen as "craft" (and even "crafts", lol).
  • Others.

Please LIST other examples in your comments just below this. Thanks.

I want to see the facts and various hypotheses kept intact!

Is there UFO Portal page? Would it be advisable?

How can people organize a watch by students and investigators of these phenomena, rather than seeing skeptics and "debunkers" pick off or diminish articles one by one? If they do so, it would typically and likely be done quietly/silently. Therefore, there MUST be a watch kept. (If I had more time, and more experience here, I might spearhead it.)

Please don't edit my comments above. Please comment below this. Thanks!

Misty MH (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Please comment here. :) Misty MH (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brookings Report

Does it not belong here as it suggests that the gov't would be interested in a coverup? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Report

While not specifically recommending a cover-up of evidence of extraterrestrial life, Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs does suggest that contact with intelligent extraterrestrial life (or strong evidence of its reality) could have a disruptive effect on human societies. Moreover, it does mention the possibility that leadership might wish to withhold evidence of extraterrestrial life from the public under some conditions...

Kortoso (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Academic ridicule

This section should be deleted. Pseudoscientists claiming mainstream scientists ridicules their pseudoscience is completely irrelevant. Of course their are ridiculed, it's an intrinsic property of pseudoscience as well as a result of it being such - not the other way around. 79.223.154.236 (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, with caveats. The information in that paragraph is not useless. I've merged it into the section "as a pseudoscience". The section heading "Academic Ridicule" Seemed, as you say, loaded with POV and un-encyclopedic. Please discuss if reverting, many thanks.Edaham (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First use of term

Earlier first-use than cited: "An Introduction to Ufology" by Ivan T. Sanderson, Feb. 1957 issue of Fantastic Universe, in which, he concludes:

"What we need, in fact, is the immediate establishment of a respectable new science named Ufology." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikspen (talk • contribs) 17:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Gesellschaft zur Erforschung des UFO-Phänomens e.V.

Hallo Alex

Please insert - thank you !

The german society Gesellschaft zur Erforschung des UFO-Phänomens e.V. (Society for the Exploration of the UFO phenomenon) was foundet 1972 in Lüdenscheid. Chairman and founder is Hans-Werner Peiniger. There is a regularly published magazine for members in german, the name is Journal für UFO-Forschung (Journal for UFO research).

--Merlin1960 (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got any good WP:FRIND sources that describe it? Alexbrn (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MENTION DR. R.LEO SPRINKLE PHD,FAMED UFOLOGIST!

NOMEMTION OF THE FAMED UFOLOGISTS, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST DR. R.LEO SPRINKLE.Dr.Sprnkle hyponitized the late betty Hill of the famous UFO abduction case of bettyy and Barney Hill of 1960s era! Dr. Sprinkles 85th Birthday will be Aug.30th ,2016, Thats the date for GlOBAL UFO FULL DISCLOOSURE DAY TOO! Thanks! Dr.Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC Founder Global Energy Indeppendence Day July.10th Nikola Teslas Birthday!104.34.181.144 (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear -Roxy the dog™ bark 20:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


This is why we can't have nice things. With all due respect to Dr. Sprinkle, the article is "Ufology", not "Ufologists", and there is no real reason to include him. You know, if you post here, please: a. DON'T SHOUT, and b. Please proofread your post, and use a dictionary if you're not sure about spelling. Merci beaucoup. --Tonybaldacci (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rampant Bias by Wiki editors re: UFOs

Discuss and link to specific examples here. Removing "Science in Default" as an introductory citation is #ignorant. The citation I offered literally is a lecture @ the AAAS introduced by Carl Sagan. It is unquestionably relevant for all time. Anyone who disagrees is ignorant about science, philosophy, and UFOs.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ufology&oldid=768273509"