Talk:Unidentified flying object

Regarding a section[change source]

Hello, I would like to bring up on of the sections.

"Studies estimate that 50-90% of all reported UFO sightings are identified later. Usually 10-20% are never identified. Studies also show that very few UFO sightings are hoaxes (people trying to trick other people). Most UFOs are actually natural or man-made objects that looked strange.

80-90% of IFOs are identified as one of three different things:

astronomical causes (for example: planets, stars, or meteors)
aircraft
weather balloons

10-20% of IFOs are other causes (such as birds, clouds, mirages, searchlights, etc.)"

There are a lot of people that beleive UFOs are real, (I heard around 25% of Americans), is it alright to say this? To me, it's like saying Bush is a bad president because his approval rating is 30%. Jet Lover ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it is kept NPOV, has a reliable source and doesn't causer BLP issues, it is pretty much fair game. Stating that some people beleive UFOs exist is perfect fine but a reference would be nice. Stating 25% of Americans beleive... would definitely need a source to back up that number. This is different from Bush is bad because.. as that is a POV statement. Saying Many people beleive Bush is bad president. He has a 30% approval rating ^[1]. This means only 30% of the people agree with what he is doing as president is a supported statement of fact ("many" may be POV-ish, but 70% would seem enough to qualify for "many") and would be fairly NPOV but stating that he is bad because of "this" is an opinion. -- Creol(talk) 00:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with saying that a lot of people believe in UFOs. Of course, that doesn't necessarily make them real. A 30% approval rating would be worth mentioning, but not make Bush bad. -- Barliner talk 00:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it doesn't make them real, but the article says they aren't. It is a very heated debate. Perhaps the article should mention that. Jet Lover ^Bam! 00:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that so many people believe UFOs are extra-terrestrial should be mentioned. The percentages themselves are facts worth mentioning. As with your mentioning the approval rating, whether that belief is correct does not matter. -- Barliner talk 00:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion[change source]

Please feel free to add more information about UFOs. It is pretty bare bones, especially compared to the en:wiki page. However, new information about UFOs should not be included under the subsection about IFOs (identified flying obects) because no flying object has yet been specifically identified as an alien spacecraft. But yes, many people do believe that flying objects that remain unidentified are alien spacecraft. This is already mentioned in the article but certainly has plenty of room for expansion.

If you re-read the article closely, I think you'll find I'm not saying that UFOs aren't alien spacecraft. I said many people believe they are. Also note that "UFO" does not equal "alien". A UFO is an object that is spotted in the air that is not immediately identifiable. But "50-90% of all reported UFO sightings are identified later". In other words, 50-90% of objects that were initially not identifiable, later become indentified as normal objects. This leaves a small percentage that could be anything, including alien spacecraft. · Tygrrr^·talk· 21:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery "AIRSHIPS" Of 1896-97 UFOS?[change source]

Can the "Mystery Airships" of 1896-97 be classed as UFOS of today?!Eddson storms (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The so called" Battle of Los Angeles" Feb.25th 1942 Cased by UFOS![change source]

On Feb .24(late night to Feb 25th 1942 A report of Three UFOS flying over the Los Angeles ,California USA area Caused a Massive fireing of wartime anti aircraft guns at these object! Some consider these objects were UFOS!DrEdsonAndreJohnson (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article didnt say about "abductions" caused by UFOS?[change source]

No mention of "abductions" caused by UFOS?! Thanks!STORMSTILLETO (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Landing strip[change source]

Is the white figure intended as a UFO landing strip, even jokingly? One cannot simply rely on a file name. JMK (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found other pictures and apparently it is know as the "Ovnipuerto de Cachi" of "UFO station of Cachi". JMK (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

↑ Insert reference here

[1] Insert reference here

[1]