Talk:Unidentified flying object: Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz |
imported>Hayford Peirce (→Thanks for the Workgroups: no wingnuts visible at 10 o'clock high) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
:While I'm not sure how much time I'll spend on it, I hope this can be an example of a controversial, borderline-fringe issue that can be objective from the start. It's not an issue on which I have strong personal opinions. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC) | :While I'm not sure how much time I'll spend on it, I hope this can be an example of a controversial, borderline-fringe issue that can be objective from the start. It's not an issue on which I have strong personal opinions. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
::Ditto. Fortunately, I don't think we have any UFO nuts in our Citizenry at the moment. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:41, 22 July 2010
|
| Metadata here |
Added metadata and some notes
This is a reasonable start for a collaborative project, and, blessedly, does not read like a conspiracy theory. It may need to be contextualized with articles on extraterrestrial intelligence and, indeed, expansions on radar, technical and imagery intelligence/photogrammetry, and phenomena of witnessed observation.
As the text began, there seemed a strong implication that UFO necessarily equated to alien. I'm certainly not dismissing the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI), but I think that a fair article also has to comment on the possibility of incorrect reports. The more dramatic the claim, the better the evidence need be.
The article may need to address the possibility that some sightings were highly classified experiments, and certainly other phenomena with an obscure but natural origin. I did provide some CIA references that indicate that at least some observations suggest something was present and could not be explained with the knowledge of the time. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Name of the article
As you can see, I've Moved it, and created a bunch of Redirects. Hayford Peirce 16:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the Workgroups
I didn't have a clue as to what I should do there! Hayford Peirce 16:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- My thinking is that aviation and flight is generally engineering (and sensors), biology deals with the nonhuman aspect, and sociology with the issue of mass belief systems. Certainly, other workgroups could be involved, such as military from the specific investigations, psychology especially from the perspectives of cognition and sensory capabilities, etc.
- While I'm not sure how much time I'll spend on it, I hope this can be an example of a controversial, borderline-fringe issue that can be objective from the start. It's not an issue on which I have strong personal opinions. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ditto. Fortunately, I don't think we have any UFO nuts in our Citizenry at the moment. Hayford Peirce 17:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)