Talk:Alien spacecraft

old talk

I don't think it should be merged with UFO because in science fiction &c. the spacecraft are identified. Bifgis 16:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea. A great many UFOs aren't even alleged to be alien spacecrafts. Take a look at the conspiracy nut websites, there is sufficient popular belief that UFOs are Russia spy planes or top secret American planes, or even CIA disinformation, to keep these two topics separate. - perfectblue (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

merging List of alleged UFO-related vehicles

• i think it would be a good idea to move List of alleged UFO-related vehicles over to this page -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 05:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with this. Primarily because many of the entries on List of alleged UFO-related vehicles are neither alien, nor spacecraft.

• Black helicopters aren't alien or spacecraft. They are just high tech helicopters in which people related to various conspiracies are said to travel.
• half of the Black triangle myths are about top secret US/Russian aircraft like the stealth etc rather than aliens or spacecraft
• The Chupa are mostly tied in with stories of spirits rather than aliens (they are said to be from a spiritual dimension/plain rather than an alien planet).
• Green fireballs. Again, often more often thought of as being an unidintified natural or man made phenomona rather than alien or space related
• Would be POV pushing to describe Identified flying objects as alien spacecraft. Especially as they are quite frequently said to be government disinformation, unidentified natural phenomena or terrestrial vehicles.
• Lenticular Reentry Vehicle, man made, plus it is an orbiter not a spacecraft
• Military flying saucers, man made and mostly said to be aircraft rather than spacecraft
• Mystery airship, said to be German, not alien. Also not spacecraft.
• Nazi UFOs, again, totally human in design and either prop or jet aircraft, not spacecraft. Not even built using alien technology. - perfectblue 17:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion: Rationale

I was originally intending to work through this article in an attempt to clean it up as tagged. My method was to go through the article statement by statement, examining each, tagging any that needed citations, editing or removing any that were obviously POV, and removing any content that was already served by other articles; after which I would concentrate on grammar/presentation etc.

However, I've come to the belief that this article cannot be salvaged. I'm going to sound very critical here, and I'm sorry if that offends the original author or subsequent contributors, but I don't think I can really avoid it.

The article is irretrievably POV. That's really unavoidable, since it is in effect dealing with one possible hypothesis within ufology; but it's a hypothesis that, whilst popular, is by no means universally accepted. The neutralising of POV statements would require either the removal of the majority of the article, or such complex phrasing that it would make it very difficult to read (it would need weasel words at every end and turn).

The article tells us nothing that isn't covered elsewhere. The UFO article itself has links to the Extraterrestrial hypothesis article, which already explains everything this article is trying to say.

The term 'alien spacecraft' could refer to a lot of different areas. Yet apart from one passing mention of science fiction at the start, this article deals solely with the extraterrestrial hypothesis in ufology. Yet someone searching for 'alien spacecraft' might be looking for UFO reports; or they might be after details of the Klingon Bird of Prey or the Tardis. Personally, I think in the latter cases it's more likely they'd search under 'Star Trek' or 'Doctor Who' respectively, but I also think it's more likely that someone would search under 'UFO' if they're after details on the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

The article is utterly riddled with weasel words and unsupported claims. For example:

"Many sources, usually originating from "leaked" material from various agencies such as NASA, the CIA and the FBI provide actual physical written reports that many ufo sightings are not ufos."

The 'many sources' are not properly identified and the references to the Usual Suspects - Nasa, CIA and the FBI - are vague. These 'actual physical written reports' are not cited so cannot be verified. We also have a logical problem here, in that UFO sightings are by definition UFOs until identified - and it's difficult to imagine that these Shadowy Government Organisations would make that mistake, especially in official documents.

The account of the Zaostrovka incident is established UFO folklore - but again, there are no actual cites here. The two websites referenced are dead: the first cannot be found at all; the second provides what looks (based on layout - I can't read Russian) like a 'this domain for sale' page. I've already removed the personal contact details given since it's not clear what they're intended to prove, and in any case Wikipedia is not a directory.

Viewpoints Section:

Everything in this section is either covered under Extraterrestrial hypothesis or is hearsay - or both. A definition of alien spacecraft is given which does not make sense:

"[T]o say that a flying object is an alien spacecraft is to say one of the following: it is performing maneuvers that are not possible with airplanes of our current, or even our most advanced high end test-aircraft technology, it is performing maneuvers contrary to what a comet or meteor would look like, such as stopping and reversing direction."

That statement implies that an object exhibiting such behaviours cannot be other than an alien spacecraft. While such abilities may show us that the object is not a known form of Earthly air- or spacecraft, there are a lot of possibilities we would still have to cover before assuming that it is of alien origin. Therefore, the statement is misleading.

"[W]e have heard on several occasions, astronauts pronouncing the words "alien spacecraft" out loud, as opposed to saying "ufo"."

If we have heard this 'on several occasions', then there should be at least one verifiable reference to an authoritative source. For example, it's staple conspiracy doctrine that Apollo astronauts made strange cryptic comments as they rounded the Moon - but the only sources for this information are UFO enthusiasts referencing each other. Nasa deny any such communications; and while such a denial may itself 'prove' the case in the minds of conspiracy theorists, an encyclopaedia cannot base its content on what a group of people, no matter how big a group, might suspect.

"The term ufo is rather vague and refers to something that we do not know the origin of, and further we do not wish to investigate."

The term 'UFO' is expected to be vague because it serves a necessarily vague function: it denotes something that is unidentified. But the phrase 'do not wish to investigate' is hopelessly POV: it conveys the presumption of deliberate obfuscation and obstruction that is necessary for a conspiracy theory to thrive. Besides, the claim makes no sense logically: what about the untold hundreds of investigations that have been undertaken - variously by governments, military, police and private citizens - but reached no conclusion firm enough to identify the object in question? Those objects remain UFOs because they have not been identified - but that doesn't suggest that no-one wishes to investigate them.

Finally, the remainder of the article appears to be little more than an advert for "Far Above Space and Time", a video blog website which purports to show videos of alien spacecraft captured by a new filming technique. Such videos are ten-a-penny on the web, however, and there is nothing to indicate why F.A.S.T. should be considered anything revolutionary or otherwise of note.

"Nasa scientists and other professors of astrology (yet to be named publicly) have shown great interest in the footage."

One, I very much doubt that Nasa is interested in the views of astrologers. Astrology and astronomy evolved from a common ancestor, but they are not the same thing at all. Two, if we're having to include disclaimers like "yet to be named publicly" then the claim is worthless.

In conclusion, I don't believe there is anything that can be done for this article and I therefore propose it for deletion. - Shrivenzale (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)