This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
ජපස recently made these edits, which are textbook cases of original research. The UFO blog post they provided as a source not once references the USS Princeton aerial object incident. The post instead critiques this Times article's interpretation of a different video entirely. To use this source, which does not mention the subject of this article once, to make the argument that the FLIR1 video also shows a jet in the distance is original research, plain and simple. AdA&D 23:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
In another case of previous reporting to the 16 December 2017 Reporting, a site called Above Top Secret is included by the Popular Mechanics article about this incident. Following that link there is, in fact, a forum post titled CVW11 Event Summary which seems to match the events of this incident. The summary is supposed to be the pilot’s radio log or something g to that effect. Again, seems like it is inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia, but I am leaving that decision up to better editors than me.
I have not laid eyes on the DoD incident report anywhere but the COI site , nor the declassification documents that to the stars academy asserts prove the authenticity and source of the videos. I have asked. It is not worthy to say this site raises funds and is thus not trustworthy. Even Wikipedia raises funds. WaPo does every time I visit. ~~ TheThomas ( talk) 09:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
The page references news articles, the news articles reference a release of information from the government. This page needs to reference the original government sources and not just the news articles. If this information is available under a FOIA request then that information is published somewhere by the primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.133.76 ( talk) 20:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
My edit-fu isn't that great so I haven't modified the article to the following effect yet. I notice that the reference link #7 for Mr. Kyle MizoKami links to the author's page but not the comments or discussion references. That seems sloppy and incomplete to me. Can we get a better link to where the author actually makes the referenced comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:6E02:8E00:E065:D3EA:105:ABAD ( talk) 00:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
News stories on David Fravor:
The video link in the WMUR story is broken. This appears to be the same video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7A5tw_0tRY
Banchang ( talk) 00:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Has there been any credible source mentioning that this might be a cover story for something else? (e.g. intended audience is Russia/China) I have read that on forums, but haven't seen any credible source saying this. -- Voidvector ( talk) 08:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
at 17:30 Luis Elizondo talks about quantum entanglement and how that could explain how these objects are flying. https://dcs.megaphone.fm/BUR4208300264.mp3?key=627d4b7ffcce9a2d6fe92bf421e0583c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.194.129 ( talk) 08:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
ජපස has now twice removed the external links section. Example: [1]. The exact guideline these external links violate is unclear to me. It is my current opinion, this section was removed do to bias of the editor. This opinion is also informed by the same editor's attempt to add text and citation from a blog that did not concern the topic of this wikipedia page, but rather confirmed editor's bias regarding the notability of the general subject matter. Kintpuash ( talk) 02:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Are you really comparing this article to the Gospel of John?! jps ( talk) 15:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
External links are not required to meet the same standard as article citations. Your argument as to the utility of my analogy appears a deflection from making a cogent argument on wikipedia policy. Meanwhile I perceive you are assuming what my personal belief systems are. If so, this would be an error. In regard to mainstream belief in alien visitation as an explanation for UFOs, I've got bad news for you. Kintpuash ( talk) 22:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Should this report of the incident be included as an external link, keeping in mind it has been verified by one of our sources as genuine? AdA&D 17:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I removed previous worng statements or corrected them: the article was focusing only on the infrared footage of the sighting, whereas the case has three distinctive parts : 1) Tracking by the advanced passive radar of the USS Princeton (during several weeks) of many UFOs descending from a ceiling of 80,000 ft toward the sea; 2) visual confirmation by US fighter pilots (the evading white Tic Tac); and 3) an infrared footage (FLIR1 video) of other fighter pilots on a later flight the same day.
During the visual sighting, according to recent pilot testimonies and interviews, there was not two different objects witnessed (a flying UFO and an underwater USO) but only one object that first emerged from of was already hovering above the churning boiling waves then climbed in the sky, played with jet aircrafts a bit and finally shoot away to the horizon. The confusion came from the Popular Mechanics article covering the event with an older 2007 unconfirmed report.
The infrared FLIR1 video of the 2004 USS Nimitz UFO incident was confused with the GIMBAL video of unknown origin. The GIMBAL video is said to have been taken on the East coast of the USA in 2015 (information still unconfirmed for place and date). – Tokamac ( talk) 00:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, I find bogus the logic to remove any clear explanation of FLIR1 vs GIMBAL footages. The video editing of various media (i.e. merging FLIR1 with GIMBAL in one single video to be presented to the public) is a mistake spread over many websites that contributes to confusion in people's mind. Wikipedia should offer a way to sort the wheat from the chaff in that matter. Apparently, no external link to TTS Academy (because it supports the extraterrestrial origin of the events? Or because it raises funds? Or because someone here doesn't like them?) cannot be cited although it is the main source of the videos; and Metabunk.org (which is organized by skeptics) cannot be cited neither although it sums an in-depth critical analysis of both videos. Why? Is it to achieve WP:NPOV? There are two ways to achieve neutrality on a stiff balance: either you put only lightweight items on scales, it's quite an easy task; or you allow several heavy non-neutral POV sources, but you pay attention to counterbalance them equitably. Giving up on the working for clarity is a acknowledgement of failure IMHO. — Tokamac ( talk) 12:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
According to various medias and interviews with the pilots, everybody mentions a flying UFO (the Tic Tac) that made "churning water with foam and frothy waves" underneath. That's was my interpretation too at the beginning. But when you carefully read the FighterSweep 2015 article, and listen to the detailed video interview of the main pilot, you realize the two events were actually disconnected, at least spatially. Especially since Cdr. David Fravor stated about the Tic Tac: "There's no rotor wash which you would see from a helicopter": you can hear the sentence at 2:24 here. If the "Tic Tac" had been actually hovering 50ft above the churning water when the pilots saw the two phenomena, the whitewater would have immediately made them think the object was precisely blowing air downward like the rotor wash of a helicopter, making the water frothy below. It was exactly the opposite. They saw the frothy waves first with apparently some kind of sunk object near the surface (a USO for unidentified submerged object), which then disappeared, and afterward they saw the Tic Tac UFO in the air nearby. In fact, according to the FS article, it was a third plane piloted by Lieutenant colonel Douglas "Cheeks" Kurth, CO of Marine Hornet squadron VMFA-232, who first saw the area of boiling water (with no flying object then) and referred it to Fravor and Slaight. But for some reason, LtCol Kurth has been completely removed from the official released account of the incident. It's a pity there is not enough material in the mainstream media to correctly report these points in the Wikipedia article, as both FS and TTS Academy cannot be linked inside the main body. TV reporters preferred asking silly questions like "were you afraid?" or "what do you think it was, aliens?" and that kind of things. — Tokamac ( talk) 11:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
can we mention the "reuse" without modification of a pre 2007 vision unlimited . DE f4.mpg student film as the 2004 Nimitz TIC TAC video , http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.vision-unlimited.de/extern/* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waptek ( talk • contribs) 00:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1qyu5i/my_ufo_encounterexposure_while_on_board_an/ This is a reddit post where an individual who claims to have served aboard the Nimitz recounts an event very similar to the News accounts of the USS Princeton Incident. His post was from four years ago, meaning there was no media coverage. I don't know if this is appropriate material for encyclopedic content. -- TheThomas ( talk) 22:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Almost all of the details in the section "Nimitz TSTA: phases I, II and III, and Final Evaluation Period during alleged incident" seem irrelevant to the article. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Requesting someone with roll back privileges to roll back the page to 11:19, 1 May 2018. A series of edits have been recently been made that appear considerable WP:OR. One of the 'new sources' used is a screenshot. Other sources are military exercise articles from 2004 that do not support the interpretation of the edits, and additional changes that appear difficult to clean up manually.-- Kintpuash ( talk) 19:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
This page is a mess. I don't know if it started out that way, or if some user or users over the past few months have made changes that degraded the quality of the article, but right now, as is, it does not belong in mainspace. I went through the page, starting at the top, making small fixes as I went, but by the time I reached the bottom it was clear that this page desperately needs a major clean up and should probably be moved until that happens (draft space, someone's sandbox, whereever... ). - theWOLFchild 13:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
And I'm noticing that there's elements and details from the original article that are steadily getting removed over the course of time. I feel this is being dishonest, and someone is trying to slant this as being illegitimate.
Official Report: https://media.lasvegasnow.com/nxsglobal/lasvegasnow/document_dev/2018/05/18/TIC%20TAC%20UFO%20EXECUTIVE%20REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0.pdf
Source: https://nypost.com/2018/05/25/military-report-reveals-more-strange-details-on-ufo-sighting/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.91.198 ( talk) 03:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Ignore the lede for a moment, do you believe that 'Source' is Fravor in the TTSA released purported Pilot Interview, as Nickell states? Kintpuash ( talk) 19:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
References
I'm not a wikipedia editor, but I saw this interview on stage of Cmdr Fravor which goes into great detail about the incident, with lots of technical details from a first person POV. I'm not sure of the current policies about uses of such interview videos, so I am leaving this link here for those who know better to document in the article and correct errors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUyGnFFilP0 - 65.96.53.130 ( talk) 17:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Do we have a good clean source for the FLIR video? It's obviously c:Template:PD-USGov-Military and is an important part of the event. int21h ( talk · contribs · email) 04:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Is this image really adding anything to the article? Looks kinda amateur imo and I don't think it adds much value. AdA&D ★ 00:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Equipment malfunction? A distant planet, a meteor?. This childish explanations we all were grown up with have no room in this century. Ignorance in this matter seems vanishing, but please stop all this ignorance all and for once. Thanks -- 83.43.68.241 ( talk) 07:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Navy Pilot Who Filmed the ‘Tic Tac’ UFO Speaks: ‘It Wasn’t Behaving by the Normal Laws of Physics’. By Matthew Phelan. Dec. 19, 2019. Intelligencer. [1]
References
This image was removed from the article. It is original research based on the interpretation of a reader as to the claims that the incident occurred ~100 mi. from San Diego. This approximation means that the shading is overly precise in a way that is unjustified by the significant figures (e.g.) in the report. It could easily just be an order of magnitude estimate anyway. In any case, all this is not allowed per Wikipedia policy. So it's gone.
jps ( talk) 18:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Really saying that the plane turned and it caused the object to move off the screen is ridiculous. As if the US military wouldn't know the difference between a moving object and a panning camera. This kind of "skeptic" is just someone who tries to deny everything without thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.41.172 ( talk) 12:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The author just offered an alternative cause for the visual effect, not conclusive causality. Arguing that a potential cause is ridiculous in engaging in more uncritical commentary than the original author's statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:406:8280:D500:48A6:680B:567:DEE8 ( talk) 15:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
"the U.S. Navy acknowledged that the three videos are of real unidentified phenomena" is a rather stupid wording. Is a phenomenon "unidentified" if nobody has identified it? Then you never know that it is a "real unidentified phenomenon", since you would have to ask everybody if they can identify it.
Or is it "unidentified" if the person who calls it unidentified has not identified it? (Of course this is the "logic" the whole of UFOlogy is based on: "I cannot identify it, therefore nobody can." In reality, the most you can say is that you failed to identify it. ) In that case, it is not a property of the phenomenon, but a relation between the phenomenon and the speaker. Grammar should reflect that: "the U.S. Navy acknowledged that the three videos are of phenomena they could not identify." -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
References
PM 20171218
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Recent edits have removed several sources indicating they were not reliable:
-- Gtoffoletto ( talk) 04:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
If these people want to be taken seriously, they would publish outside of MDPI where they have a pocket editor. Sadly, as is so often the case in these sorts of pathological science, there is just a cul-du-sac of poorly vetted papers. Per WP:REDFLAG, Wikipedia is not empowered to include them in articlespace until someone outside this cul-du-sac actually notices them. Self-citations don't count. jps ( talk) 14:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
This Youtube channel: The Nimitz Encounters https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6i-se5IU8hRbPov5-ON1tw is dedicated to the events and includes interviews with 5 additional witnesses. The interviews has been reported on and are the source for the Popular Mechanics article: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a29771548/navy-ufo-witnesses-tell-truth/
Can we use them as source? Should we at least add them in the "external links" section of something similar? -- Gtoffoletto ( talk) 10:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
It is fine for us to report what people have said about this incident. It is fine to share those reports as the attributed opinions of those people. It is absolutely unacceptable to claim the existence of any object or apparition in Wikipedia's voice. That is the essence of WP:NPOV. Likewise, we should not, in Wikipedia's voice, claim that there was no object. So I have gone through and patiently tried to fix the wording which was heavily skewed towards the POV that this incident was the record of an actual object traveling in the way described by the pilots and technicians who described the situation. Here is a record of the clean-up. I strongly recommend any interested editors here familiarize themselves with WP:FRINGE. It is not okay to use Wikipedia to promote the fringe view that UFOs represent a phenomena that requires any sort of extravagant explanation beyond the ones that are normally provided. jps ( talk) 16:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Nobody is doing so.As the diff above shows, the wording was definitely doing so. I have now cleaned it up. I also added the paragraph from SI with a few cosmetic changes. We can certainly move forward from here! But I will not abide by claims that "UAP", or whatever you want to call them, are physical objects unless and until we get some fantastic sources that can allow us to WP:ASSERT as much. Wording matters. jps ( talk) 17:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
If that they believe they perceived an object is attributed as their claim without undue insistence, because a reliable source also mentions it in those terms, then this should be fine I think (including via short quotes if necessary)...doesn't mean "has observed an object" but means "claims to have observed an object" (or variants like "reported observing an alledged object", or alternatively, using a quote like reported: "... object ...", etc). — Paleo Neonate – 17:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
ජපස recently made these edits, which are textbook cases of original research. The UFO blog post they provided as a source not once references the USS Princeton aerial object incident. The post instead critiques this Times article's interpretation of a different video entirely. To use this source, which does not mention the subject of this article once, to make the argument that the FLIR1 video also shows a jet in the distance is original research, plain and simple. AdA&D 23:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
In another case of previous reporting to the 16 December 2017 Reporting, a site called Above Top Secret is included by the Popular Mechanics article about this incident. Following that link there is, in fact, a forum post titled CVW11 Event Summary which seems to match the events of this incident. The summary is supposed to be the pilot’s radio log or something g to that effect. Again, seems like it is inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia, but I am leaving that decision up to better editors than me.
I have not laid eyes on the DoD incident report anywhere but the COI site , nor the declassification documents that to the stars academy asserts prove the authenticity and source of the videos. I have asked. It is not worthy to say this site raises funds and is thus not trustworthy. Even Wikipedia raises funds. WaPo does every time I visit. ~~ TheThomas ( talk) 09:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
The page references news articles, the news articles reference a release of information from the government. This page needs to reference the original government sources and not just the news articles. If this information is available under a FOIA request then that information is published somewhere by the primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.133.76 ( talk) 20:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
My edit-fu isn't that great so I haven't modified the article to the following effect yet. I notice that the reference link #7 for Mr. Kyle MizoKami links to the author's page but not the comments or discussion references. That seems sloppy and incomplete to me. Can we get a better link to where the author actually makes the referenced comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:6E02:8E00:E065:D3EA:105:ABAD ( talk) 00:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
News stories on David Fravor:
The video link in the WMUR story is broken. This appears to be the same video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7A5tw_0tRY
Banchang ( talk) 00:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Has there been any credible source mentioning that this might be a cover story for something else? (e.g. intended audience is Russia/China) I have read that on forums, but haven't seen any credible source saying this. -- Voidvector ( talk) 08:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
at 17:30 Luis Elizondo talks about quantum entanglement and how that could explain how these objects are flying. https://dcs.megaphone.fm/BUR4208300264.mp3?key=627d4b7ffcce9a2d6fe92bf421e0583c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.194.129 ( talk) 08:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
ජපස has now twice removed the external links section. Example: [1]. The exact guideline these external links violate is unclear to me. It is my current opinion, this section was removed do to bias of the editor. This opinion is also informed by the same editor's attempt to add text and citation from a blog that did not concern the topic of this wikipedia page, but rather confirmed editor's bias regarding the notability of the general subject matter. Kintpuash ( talk) 02:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Are you really comparing this article to the Gospel of John?! jps ( talk) 15:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
External links are not required to meet the same standard as article citations. Your argument as to the utility of my analogy appears a deflection from making a cogent argument on wikipedia policy. Meanwhile I perceive you are assuming what my personal belief systems are. If so, this would be an error. In regard to mainstream belief in alien visitation as an explanation for UFOs, I've got bad news for you. Kintpuash ( talk) 22:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Should this report of the incident be included as an external link, keeping in mind it has been verified by one of our sources as genuine? AdA&D 17:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I removed previous worng statements or corrected them: the article was focusing only on the infrared footage of the sighting, whereas the case has three distinctive parts : 1) Tracking by the advanced passive radar of the USS Princeton (during several weeks) of many UFOs descending from a ceiling of 80,000 ft toward the sea; 2) visual confirmation by US fighter pilots (the evading white Tic Tac); and 3) an infrared footage (FLIR1 video) of other fighter pilots on a later flight the same day.
During the visual sighting, according to recent pilot testimonies and interviews, there was not two different objects witnessed (a flying UFO and an underwater USO) but only one object that first emerged from of was already hovering above the churning boiling waves then climbed in the sky, played with jet aircrafts a bit and finally shoot away to the horizon. The confusion came from the Popular Mechanics article covering the event with an older 2007 unconfirmed report.
The infrared FLIR1 video of the 2004 USS Nimitz UFO incident was confused with the GIMBAL video of unknown origin. The GIMBAL video is said to have been taken on the East coast of the USA in 2015 (information still unconfirmed for place and date). – Tokamac ( talk) 00:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, I find bogus the logic to remove any clear explanation of FLIR1 vs GIMBAL footages. The video editing of various media (i.e. merging FLIR1 with GIMBAL in one single video to be presented to the public) is a mistake spread over many websites that contributes to confusion in people's mind. Wikipedia should offer a way to sort the wheat from the chaff in that matter. Apparently, no external link to TTS Academy (because it supports the extraterrestrial origin of the events? Or because it raises funds? Or because someone here doesn't like them?) cannot be cited although it is the main source of the videos; and Metabunk.org (which is organized by skeptics) cannot be cited neither although it sums an in-depth critical analysis of both videos. Why? Is it to achieve WP:NPOV? There are two ways to achieve neutrality on a stiff balance: either you put only lightweight items on scales, it's quite an easy task; or you allow several heavy non-neutral POV sources, but you pay attention to counterbalance them equitably. Giving up on the working for clarity is a acknowledgement of failure IMHO. — Tokamac ( talk) 12:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
According to various medias and interviews with the pilots, everybody mentions a flying UFO (the Tic Tac) that made "churning water with foam and frothy waves" underneath. That's was my interpretation too at the beginning. But when you carefully read the FighterSweep 2015 article, and listen to the detailed video interview of the main pilot, you realize the two events were actually disconnected, at least spatially. Especially since Cdr. David Fravor stated about the Tic Tac: "There's no rotor wash which you would see from a helicopter": you can hear the sentence at 2:24 here. If the "Tic Tac" had been actually hovering 50ft above the churning water when the pilots saw the two phenomena, the whitewater would have immediately made them think the object was precisely blowing air downward like the rotor wash of a helicopter, making the water frothy below. It was exactly the opposite. They saw the frothy waves first with apparently some kind of sunk object near the surface (a USO for unidentified submerged object), which then disappeared, and afterward they saw the Tic Tac UFO in the air nearby. In fact, according to the FS article, it was a third plane piloted by Lieutenant colonel Douglas "Cheeks" Kurth, CO of Marine Hornet squadron VMFA-232, who first saw the area of boiling water (with no flying object then) and referred it to Fravor and Slaight. But for some reason, LtCol Kurth has been completely removed from the official released account of the incident. It's a pity there is not enough material in the mainstream media to correctly report these points in the Wikipedia article, as both FS and TTS Academy cannot be linked inside the main body. TV reporters preferred asking silly questions like "were you afraid?" or "what do you think it was, aliens?" and that kind of things. — Tokamac ( talk) 11:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
can we mention the "reuse" without modification of a pre 2007 vision unlimited . DE f4.mpg student film as the 2004 Nimitz TIC TAC video , http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.vision-unlimited.de/extern/* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waptek ( talk • contribs) 00:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1qyu5i/my_ufo_encounterexposure_while_on_board_an/ This is a reddit post where an individual who claims to have served aboard the Nimitz recounts an event very similar to the News accounts of the USS Princeton Incident. His post was from four years ago, meaning there was no media coverage. I don't know if this is appropriate material for encyclopedic content. -- TheThomas ( talk) 22:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Almost all of the details in the section "Nimitz TSTA: phases I, II and III, and Final Evaluation Period during alleged incident" seem irrelevant to the article. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Requesting someone with roll back privileges to roll back the page to 11:19, 1 May 2018. A series of edits have been recently been made that appear considerable WP:OR. One of the 'new sources' used is a screenshot. Other sources are military exercise articles from 2004 that do not support the interpretation of the edits, and additional changes that appear difficult to clean up manually.-- Kintpuash ( talk) 19:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
This page is a mess. I don't know if it started out that way, or if some user or users over the past few months have made changes that degraded the quality of the article, but right now, as is, it does not belong in mainspace. I went through the page, starting at the top, making small fixes as I went, but by the time I reached the bottom it was clear that this page desperately needs a major clean up and should probably be moved until that happens (draft space, someone's sandbox, whereever... ). - theWOLFchild 13:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
And I'm noticing that there's elements and details from the original article that are steadily getting removed over the course of time. I feel this is being dishonest, and someone is trying to slant this as being illegitimate.
Official Report: https://media.lasvegasnow.com/nxsglobal/lasvegasnow/document_dev/2018/05/18/TIC%20TAC%20UFO%20EXECUTIVE%20REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0.pdf
Source: https://nypost.com/2018/05/25/military-report-reveals-more-strange-details-on-ufo-sighting/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.91.198 ( talk) 03:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Ignore the lede for a moment, do you believe that 'Source' is Fravor in the TTSA released purported Pilot Interview, as Nickell states? Kintpuash ( talk) 19:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
References
I'm not a wikipedia editor, but I saw this interview on stage of Cmdr Fravor which goes into great detail about the incident, with lots of technical details from a first person POV. I'm not sure of the current policies about uses of such interview videos, so I am leaving this link here for those who know better to document in the article and correct errors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUyGnFFilP0 - 65.96.53.130 ( talk) 17:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Do we have a good clean source for the FLIR video? It's obviously c:Template:PD-USGov-Military and is an important part of the event. int21h ( talk · contribs · email) 04:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Is this image really adding anything to the article? Looks kinda amateur imo and I don't think it adds much value. AdA&D ★ 00:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Equipment malfunction? A distant planet, a meteor?. This childish explanations we all were grown up with have no room in this century. Ignorance in this matter seems vanishing, but please stop all this ignorance all and for once. Thanks -- 83.43.68.241 ( talk) 07:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Navy Pilot Who Filmed the ‘Tic Tac’ UFO Speaks: ‘It Wasn’t Behaving by the Normal Laws of Physics’. By Matthew Phelan. Dec. 19, 2019. Intelligencer. [1]
References
This image was removed from the article. It is original research based on the interpretation of a reader as to the claims that the incident occurred ~100 mi. from San Diego. This approximation means that the shading is overly precise in a way that is unjustified by the significant figures (e.g.) in the report. It could easily just be an order of magnitude estimate anyway. In any case, all this is not allowed per Wikipedia policy. So it's gone.
jps ( talk) 18:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Really saying that the plane turned and it caused the object to move off the screen is ridiculous. As if the US military wouldn't know the difference between a moving object and a panning camera. This kind of "skeptic" is just someone who tries to deny everything without thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.41.172 ( talk) 12:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The author just offered an alternative cause for the visual effect, not conclusive causality. Arguing that a potential cause is ridiculous in engaging in more uncritical commentary than the original author's statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:406:8280:D500:48A6:680B:567:DEE8 ( talk) 15:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
"the U.S. Navy acknowledged that the three videos are of real unidentified phenomena" is a rather stupid wording. Is a phenomenon "unidentified" if nobody has identified it? Then you never know that it is a "real unidentified phenomenon", since you would have to ask everybody if they can identify it.
Or is it "unidentified" if the person who calls it unidentified has not identified it? (Of course this is the "logic" the whole of UFOlogy is based on: "I cannot identify it, therefore nobody can." In reality, the most you can say is that you failed to identify it. ) In that case, it is not a property of the phenomenon, but a relation between the phenomenon and the speaker. Grammar should reflect that: "the U.S. Navy acknowledged that the three videos are of phenomena they could not identify." -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
References
PM 20171218
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Recent edits have removed several sources indicating they were not reliable:
-- Gtoffoletto ( talk) 04:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
If these people want to be taken seriously, they would publish outside of MDPI where they have a pocket editor. Sadly, as is so often the case in these sorts of pathological science, there is just a cul-du-sac of poorly vetted papers. Per WP:REDFLAG, Wikipedia is not empowered to include them in articlespace until someone outside this cul-du-sac actually notices them. Self-citations don't count. jps ( talk) 14:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
This Youtube channel: The Nimitz Encounters https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6i-se5IU8hRbPov5-ON1tw is dedicated to the events and includes interviews with 5 additional witnesses. The interviews has been reported on and are the source for the Popular Mechanics article: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a29771548/navy-ufo-witnesses-tell-truth/
Can we use them as source? Should we at least add them in the "external links" section of something similar? -- Gtoffoletto ( talk) 10:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
It is fine for us to report what people have said about this incident. It is fine to share those reports as the attributed opinions of those people. It is absolutely unacceptable to claim the existence of any object or apparition in Wikipedia's voice. That is the essence of WP:NPOV. Likewise, we should not, in Wikipedia's voice, claim that there was no object. So I have gone through and patiently tried to fix the wording which was heavily skewed towards the POV that this incident was the record of an actual object traveling in the way described by the pilots and technicians who described the situation. Here is a record of the clean-up. I strongly recommend any interested editors here familiarize themselves with WP:FRINGE. It is not okay to use Wikipedia to promote the fringe view that UFOs represent a phenomena that requires any sort of extravagant explanation beyond the ones that are normally provided. jps ( talk) 16:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Nobody is doing so.As the diff above shows, the wording was definitely doing so. I have now cleaned it up. I also added the paragraph from SI with a few cosmetic changes. We can certainly move forward from here! But I will not abide by claims that "UAP", or whatever you want to call them, are physical objects unless and until we get some fantastic sources that can allow us to WP:ASSERT as much. Wording matters. jps ( talk) 17:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
If that they believe they perceived an object is attributed as their claim without undue insistence, because a reliable source also mentions it in those terms, then this should be fine I think (including via short quotes if necessary)...doesn't mean "has observed an object" but means "claims to have observed an object" (or variants like "reported observing an alledged object", or alternatively, using a quote like reported: "... object ...", etc). — Paleo Neonate – 17:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)