Talk:David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims

Extended confirmed protection

Hello. Does this page still need to be under protection?--Marginataen (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, as disruptive editor(s) continue to troll this topic on multiple editors' Talk pages. Please also note that it is good form to sign all of your Talk page comments. You do so by typing four consecutive tildes (~) at the end of your comment. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I knew but forgot. Marginataen (talk) 11:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is a Politico article on Kirkpatrick. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/11/12/sean-kirkpatrick-ufos-pentagon-00126214 It contains a discussion of AARO's relation to Grusch, and so should be mentioned in the section of Wikipedia's page on USG responses to Grusch.

Yet four days after the publication of the POLITICO article, no Wikipedia editor who can edit Wikipedia's page on Grusch's claims has put a mention of this in the page? Obviously, people who have an unbiased interest in this matter are being prevented from editing it by the page's restriction. The restriction is preventing unbiased editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KHarbaugh (talk • contribs) 17:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, people who have an unbiased interest in this matter are being prevented from editing it by the page's restriction. Not so obviously. The implication of that evidence-free claim is that editors who can, and have, edited this article have a "biased" interest against, or for...what, exactly? Perhaps WP:NORUSH is worth a read. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

For the record, here is the part of the Politico article I was referring to:

David Grusch is a unique instance in that he has refused to come and share any of that information. We still can’t get him to come in. I’ve got five different people who have gone to talk to him to get him to come in. And the answers have always been everything from “We’re not cleared” to “It would jeopardize his whistleblower protections” to “Why can’t we just go get the information that he shared from the IG?” It’s every excuse that I have heard, why not to come in. And that’s been a challenge because now here we are, we’re about to put out Volume One of the historical review, which I believe captures most all of the people that he’s spoken with, but I can’t say that 100 percent because I can’t hear what he thinks he has. If he has evidence, I need to know what that is. KHarbaugh (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Grusch refused to speak with AARO. We already have text in the article attributing pretty much the same basic story to Kirkpatrick, speaking in an unofficial capacity of course. I'm not sure what more the new Politico article could contribute here, except to flog some juicy quotes that add drama and urgency. Nothing encyclopedic would be gained. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

None of this is relevant to the article page. Plus, that Politico link is under their "News, Analysis and Opinion from POLITICO" category (Exit Interview). Opinion pages are not WP:RS for anything but "this is what the person believes" citations.

You keep insisting on shoving these non-RS sites into the article, and it's becoming disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Sean Kirkpatrick press conference on 2023-10-31

See https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3575588/aaro-director-dr-sean-kirkpatrick-holds-an-off-camera-media-roundtable/

"Q: So, David Grusch, the whistleblower who came forward to NewsNation, says he reached out to you to share his discoveries, and that you didn't follow up. So, did you follow up and investigate his claims? He says he still hasn't heard from you. So, ultimately, why haven't you two connected?

DR. KIRKPATRICK: So, Mr. Grusch, since AARO has stood up and since I've been director, has not come to see us and provided any information.

Q: And so, he also says that he briefed you before you assumed your position in AARO. Have you had the chance to follow up on any of the inquiries that he made or talked to any of the witnesses?

DR. KIRKPATRICK: So, the last time I believe I spoke with Mr. Grusch was when I was in the J2 at U.S. Space Command about five years ago, and it was not on this topic. Now, we have interviewed a whole range of people, over 30 people now. I think we've interviewed most of the people that he may have talked to, but we don't know that. And we have extended an invitation at least four or five times now for him to come in over the last eight months or so and has been declined."

OTOH, NewsNation claims that David Grusch denied what Kirkpatrick said: "Grusch denied that AARO attempted to contact him." https://www.newsnationnow.com/vargasreports/dod-david-grusch-ufo-uap-newsnation-exclusive/

Clearly, a reference to this belongs in the section of the main article on "USG Responses". KHarbaugh (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Newsnationnow.com clearly trying to create and exploit controversy, however mainstream outlets have not found this minor tidbit of gossip worthy of notice. Until then... - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

POLITICO says Sean Kirkpatrick says he is stepping down as head of AARO at the end of 2023:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/07/pentagon-ufo-boss-00125883

This was, accurately, forecast in various "unreliable" sources, e.g.:

2023-11-02

Pentagon UFO chief Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick will be replaced by year's end https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12703835/Pentagon-UFO-chief-AARO-Kirkpatrick-REPLACED-whistleblowers-accuse-lying-public-ignoring-witnesses.html KHarbaugh (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Glad to hear you enjoy The Daily Mail but you know, it's the WP:DAILYMAIL. Well when this gossipy rumor moves from tantalizing tease to factual data, someone can add the name of Kirpatrick's replacement here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

In the POLITICO article linked to above, Kirkpatrick said something that is worth quoting:

In fact, he [Kirkpatrick] believes “the best thing that could come out of this job is to prove that there are aliens” — because the alternative is a much bigger problem.

“If we don’t prove it’s aliens, then what we’re finding is evidence of other people doing stuff in our backyard,” he said. “And that’s not good.”

. KHarbaugh (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Cool, but this is an article about David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims. I'm not sure how a sardonic wisecrack by Kirkpatrick is relevant to the Grusch story. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a logical fallacy because it presents a false dichotomy that excludes many other plausible origins for UFOs. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Will you knock it off? You keep posting every time someone sneezes about this topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Quote from your user page:

"This user is against cyberbullying."

Ironic? Foerdi (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Telling you to stop being WP:DISRUPTive is not bullying. If you feel it is, WP:ANI is thataway. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It is quoteworthy. If in the opinion of some old (and I am also old in the sense of long-time WP user) guys here even Kirkpatrick is not relevant in context of Gruschs claims then who is? Must the aliens themselves give an interview to WaPo AND NYT AND to "TheHandThatFeedsYou" personally sothat we finally are allowed to quote someone? No one is relevant, nothing is to be talked about, knock it off, Ruhe jetzt hier sonst gibt es auf die Nase. Foerdi (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

At a minimum the quote would actually have to be about the subject of the article, and this one clearly is not. MrOllie (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

That was incoherent. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

For clarity, let me distinguish between two quotes involving Kirkpatrick that I have cited in this section.

One deals with a dispute between Kirkpatrick and Grusch.

That, to me, clearly belongs on David Grusch's web page in its section on USG Responses.

The other is Kirkpatrick talking about his general views on the UAP investigation.

That, to me, belongs on one or more of Wikipedia's pages on Investigation of UFO reports by the United States government, UFOs, AARO, and Sean Kirkpatrick. KHarbaugh (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Only one of them (the one that is off topic here) comes from a reliable secondary source. MrOllie (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Really? Are DoD transcripts not to be cited here? Are they not reliable? KHarbaugh (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't mine quotes from primary sources, no. MrOllie (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia page on No original research:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

That policy permits quotations from primary sources, when used "with care".

I don't see a problem here with quoting Kirkpatrick.

He is explicitly talking about his relation with Grusch.

No misinterpretation here. KHarbaugh (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

This isn't use 'with care', this is pasting something in from a primary source purely because you personally find it interesting. Wikipedia doesn't do that - reliable secondary sources have to show it is worth covering. MrOllie (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The Hill reporting on Kirkpatrick's statement

New today from a reliable secondary source (dated November 10, 2023.) While I notice Grusch is not directly mentioned in the article, former U.S. Navy fighter pilot Ryan Graves, who testified along with Grusch before the U.S. Congress, is. An interesting read, with numerous references and links, and relevant here, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not "reporting" as in journalism vetted by the publisher. It's an opinion piece preceded by a disclaimer from the publisher. This is one more in a series of sensationalist eyeball candy featuring the usual pro-alien talking points by Marik Von Rennenkampff, whose greatest hits include UFO Scandals TO COME, Witnesses FRIGHTENED FOR THEIR LIVES! and CRYPTIC 'ALIEN' MESSAGES?! Pentagon’s UFO Office Is Sending Coded Messages! as well as various efforts to disparage non-alien explanations. These "opinions" are certainly novel and entertaining but they're not appropriate for an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Per Louie -- No, that opinon piece has nothing to contribute to this article. Feoffer (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

You have to be very careful with the Hill, they post a lot of OP-eds from non journalists - much more frequently than other press outlets do. I'm often halfway through a piece there and suddenly realize that it was written by somebody's campaign manager. MrOllie (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Grusch on Joe Rogan

Regarding this diff, yes, Grusch saying he believes in all kinds of fringy stuff is interesting, but we'd need a WP:SECONDARY source to provide this particular analysis. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to talk. We don't need secondary sources when a person is talking about their own beliefs. PRIMARY: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." A direct quotes is fine per WP:BLP. To disallow these things he has said, you'd need to argue that there is some sort of *interpretation* or *synthesis* being made. Or I guess you could say he's not saying what he's saying, if that's your argument I'll get you the specific time codes for each claim.

I'd understand an argument that those specific beliefs are not NOTABLE amongst the almost 3 hours of talk, but since this is a page about Grusch's UFO claims, it would be odd for us to exclude other UFO and PSI claims he makes.

So while I am not agreeing to your requirement for SECONDARY for direct quotes, here are some secondary sources and the specific quotes they found noteworthy. If you don't think these are RS, then I'd direct you to WP:PARITY.

"the phenomenon is real, it’s been going on for thousands of years, people have been seeing strange things, and not everybody’s mass hallucinating.”@[1]https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/space/ufo-whistleblower-claims-us-has-variety-of-alien-bodies-interactions-may-have-occurred/news-story/158491ea3bb98e6a4e43574eb937b2dc

Remote viewing works, and there is a part of the brain that "lights up" like a transceiver when people are remote viewing or "projecting their consciousness" into a "Russian missile base."[2]https://twitter.com/mickwest/status/1727101738036142111?s=46&t=re7mAgLyV1_arVp5B6aMNQ DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd understand an argument that those specific beliefs are not NOTABLE amongst the almost 3 hours of talk Good. I'm sorry if I was unclear before, but now you seem to have a grasp of the problem. but since this is a page about Grusch's UFO claims, it would be odd for us to exclude other UFO and PSI claims he makes. Er, no. Grusch makes dozens and dozens and dozens of claims related to UFOs, conspiracies, etc. It's not up to editors to trawl thru primary sources and pick out which 6 things are the most important out of 100s. I'm sure he says plenty of things defending his credibility and making a case for why people should believe him, but you've skipped over those in favor of things that help make your case. Look, I don't believe anything Grusch is selling and agree he's into all kinds of woo woo. But I'm not going to twist and bend editorial policies in order to make the article emphasize that. Secondary sources will come along soon (and no, not Twitter posts). Be patient. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

We cannot ignore what he said on the most popular podcast in the world. The topic of this page is Grusch's claims, so we can't, even in the name of policy, cherry pick his most plausible claims. Many of his other wacky views that he has said only in interviews and that have been ignored by mainstream press are in the page now. I think that is as it should be.

With fringe topics that become news (see Havana Syndrome), the proper policy to follow is WP:PARITY. "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia." So yes, YouTube and X and Reddit or parity with JRE. Grusch believes that "the phenomenon" is a bipedal hominid, that remote viewing works and that Jacques Vallée has important things to say.

Here is the text you reverted:

Grusch appeared on the The Joe Rogan Experience podcast in 2023 where he expanded on his claims and, over the two hour and forty minute interview, expressed credulity in near death experiences, biblical references to the Wheel of Ezekial, remote viewing, the work of Jacques Vallee, and "the phenomenon" which "presents itself as a bipedal hominid".

He actually didn't, as you say, make dozens³ of claims, and I think this covers the bulk of the ones that aren't already on this page, but let me know if you'd like to fill it out with other claims. Perhaps we should mention that he expounded on inter-dimensional beings? That he hangs out with Garry Nolan and other UFOlogists? DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:DUE says that yes, we do only choose the notable claims. Otherwise this article would just be a list of all the inane things that have popped out of his mouth, just like the Donald Trump article, or anyone else who says random nonsense on a daily basis. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:PARITY is intended to assist in providing sources that give needed criticism of WP:FRINGE theories. It should not be used as a mechanism for a fringe theorist to give a laundry list of their views - which then go unchallenged. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

This page is unquestionably a FRINGE page. David Grusch is making claims. That is this page's notability. ALL of his claims are notable. We use PARITY to make the challenges that are too inane for RS to make. Mick West does that on his X account. That is exactly the challenge we are discussing. We have Mick West as WP:SECONDARY and WP:PARITY. That is policy. It's time to put it back in. If you would like to change the wording in some way let me know. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

We use PARITY to make the challenges that are too inane for RS to make. Mick West does that on his X account. That is exactly the challenge we are discussing. Where is the challenge Joe Rogan is making? I don't see it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I assume you mean Mick West not Joe Rogan. Here is one of Mick's Tweets that I linked above already.

[3]https://twitter.com/mickwest/status/1727101738036142111?s=46&t=re7mAgLyV1_arVp5B6aMNQ DolyaIskrina (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

OK the Mick West tweet is critical of Grusch's claim about remote viewing, so yes, that is a challenge, and it might be used if others agree to ignore WP:TWITTER. Your original text left out the context and attribution of that specific challenge. You had included a bunch of other stuff not attributed to anyone. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not being clearer. We use WP:PARITY to include a source like Twitter. WP:TWITTER is not being ignored, WP:PARITY is being used. "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia." DolyaIskrina (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It would help to post here the article text you want to cite to Mick West's Twitter post. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I would use Mick West as a source for the text you reverted. The text you reverted states in relatively neutral terms that Grusch claimed on JRE that remote viewing works. West answers the DUE and BALANCE issue that you most recently said were the reason you reverted me. DolyaIskrina (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

This text? Cited to this tweet? No. We can't editorialize points that the source doesn't make. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

What is the editorializing in the text to which you refer? It mentions that he expressed credulity, which he does per SKYBLUE and ABOUTSELF. You have argued that the text is UNDUE. The Mick West source which I use according to PARITY merely establishes that it is DUE. Are you now changing your argument to one of SYNTH?

To recap, you started with PRIMARY, then you argued DUE and now you are arguing SYNTH? It seems like you are moving the goalposts. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't blame me when every new angle you introduce to justify inclusion simply doesn't justify inclusion. However I would welcome other editors opinions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Please tell me how I'm editorializing in directly quoting him. As to other editors, I'm happy to start an RFC, because the guy who said there are aliens also believes in "the phenomenon" being a "bipedal hominid" and that there is a horseshoe shaped part of the brain that allows you to remote view Soviet bases. The fact that he believes those things is very important to the subject of the article, which is, "David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims." Those are claims he is making. DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Article not adhering to MOS:CLAIM

I would like to restore this edit which was reverted by LuckyLouie. We should avoid synonyms for the word "said" which can be loaded terms or make undue implications. My edit made no substantive changes to the content other than giving it a neutral tone as required by WP:NPOV, a Wikipedia policy. – Anne drew 03:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

MOS:CLAIM does not say we should not use the word "claim". It says, To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question. Since the statements are not credible - they are hearsay and tall tales - that is exactly what we should do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Your personal feelings on the matter don’t override WP:NPOV which is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. You’ve cited no policies to support the reversion and are just basing it on your own personal bias in violation of NPOV. – Anne drew 13:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned in the edit summary, WP:EXTRAORDINARY and WP:FRINGE justify a "loaded" term in this case. NPOV is not a suicide pact. It is frequently misunderstood to mean we must treat widely-deprecated ideas credibly, when in fact NPOV is WP:NOTNEUTRAL. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

When military officials, inspectors general, and Congressional leaders are giving Grusch’s statements credibility, it would be wise to err on the side of impartiality. There is no consensus on the veracity of Grusch’s statements so you shouldn’t imply that there is. – Anne drew 14:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Gee, it's almost as if people in political positions are using him for political reasons, rather than scientific ones.

Wikipedia does not operate on the consensus of political actors, so you're barking up the wrong tree there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

There is total consensus that Grusch has provided 0 evidence. He is making claims. LuckyLouie and I agree on this one. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

1. Neither military officers nor Inspectors General are in political positions.

2. Members of Congress certainly are, but there is support for Grusch's claims, and for getting further information on them, on both sides of the aisle.

There is no evidence that this is a partisan issue.

Introducing politics is a red herring.

3. The key point here is the issue of classification.

Those politicians have access to highly classified information, which most scientists and journalists do not.

Are the statements of cleared politicians influenced by their access to secrets, or by partisan politics?

I see nothing to support the latter motivation.

Again, that seems a red herring.

4. Thus, I see the key, most relevant, distinction as not between science and politics, but between cleared and uncleared personnel. KHarbaugh (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

You're dredging up a 3-month-old discussion to argue semantics? And your insistence that my points are a red herring implies I'm intentionally derailing the discussion. That's a personal attack, don't go there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia,

"A red herring may be used intentionally, as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g., in politics), or may be used in argumentation inadvertently."

So, no, it doesn't automatically imply intent. KHarbaugh (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not interested in arguing semantics. A term like that is very inflammatory, I'd suggest avoiding it. If you have a new point to make, please start a new section with the cites to support your point, instead of dragging out a 3-month-old discussion that was dead. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV means that we should reflect the tone of the sources, which this article does. You should reread that page, particularly the section on false balance. MrOllie (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. Are you team "claim" or team "said"? DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

"Claimed" is more appropriate in this context. I think "alleged" is fine too, but "said" is too weak. Feoffer (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 December 2023

Why is every single article associated with this page trying to disprove him when there are plenty experts and articles, confirming his accusations and backing them up… Just curious… 2603:8081:7705:2D73:A122:D330:A0C6:33EC (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please link the experts and articles here. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Nick Pope revisited

I reverted[4] changes to the Nick Pope bits. They play up Pope's pre-2009 role in the UK government. Pope has been interviewed about Grusch as a UFO researcher and journalist. Previous discussions[5][6] have debated his relevance to the subject in general, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I didn't see a consensus established in those discussions. Did you? Pope seems to be about as legitimate as Grusch. Like Grusch he worked in government, like Grusch he has made a second career out of opining about UFO's. The fact that Pope is unimpressed by Grusch seems significant. Pope has spoken recently to the press saying that it now seems unlikely that Grusch's claims could be confirmed. So it seems odd to freeze Pope's previous statement as his final word. DolyaIskrina (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Grusch's claims on Joe Rogan Experience

Looking for editor input and hoping to avoid an RFC. The question is: should something similar to the following text be in the article:

Grusch appeared on the The Joe Rogan Experience podcast in 2023 where he expanded on his claims and, over the two hour and forty minute interview, expressed credulity in near death experiences, biblical references to the Wheel of Ezekial, remote viewing, the work of Jacques Vallée, and "the phenomenon" which "presents itself as a bipedal hominid".

There has been very little reporting on it in the mainstream media, but Mick West has critically tweeted about the Stargate remote viewing claims, And www.news.com.au has taken note of the "phenomenon" talk. So per WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY we should not let his claims made to millions on JRE go without, if not a critique, a mere taking note of it.

So the question becomes, is it DUE to mention all, some or none of the outlandish things he said? I think my proposed text is a modest and literal description of most of what applies directly to the topic of this page, which is his UFO claims.

Here is a list of everything he said that isn't already in the article:

• In the work of Jacques Vallée. He references him at (55:40, 1:51:00).
• That there is a single "Phenomenon" which, "using the work of Jacques Vallée", has manifested throughout history from Ezekial's Wheel in the Bible to "witches sitting on your chest" (55:40) to "orbs" or "bipedal hominid" (57:40), and that the phenomenon may soon grow impatient and disclose itself. 2:34:00
• That the phenomenon might be part of the "shadow biome" or be a "crypto terrestrial" (57:44)
• The phenomenon might be dimensional beings and related to the Holographic Principle. (58:40)
• Remote viewing is real. Gary Nolan’s theory that the caudate putamen part of the brain is a "transceiver" that allows remote viewing. (1:40:to 1:46)
• People who have "had contact" have psychic experiences. (1:46:00)
• The book "Proof of Heaven" by Dr. Even Alexander confirms Near Death Experiences.
• Mormon Theology, secularized, reflects the truth about higher dimensional life forces are creating other being. (1:48:00)

He discussed many other things too, but I believe the above list covers all of his statements of personal beliefs about the nature of reality and "the phenomenon." DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

There has been very little reporting on it in the mainstream media There's your answer, if secondary sources don't see fit to coment it isn't WP:DUE. MrOllie (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Have you read WP:PARITY? "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia" Also, please see WP:PRIMARY:"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Neither PARITY not PRIMARY have much to do with the question of DUE weight which you asked above. In any case, PARITY is about not requiring a higher bar for critiques vs the theories they comment on - here you are trying to include the theories themselves, so PARITY is plainly irrelevant. As to primary sourcing, I'll repeat what I wrote further up the page: Wikipedia doesn't mine quotes from primary sources, no. MrOllie (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no such policy on wikipedia that we avoid fringe theories. Rather, we present fringe theories as theories that are fringe.

I'm not trying to include additional theories. He mentioned Holographic Principle and interdimensional beings in the congressional hearing. His talk about both of those things was commented on by the Physicists Sean M. Carroll and by Mick West.

You say it is not due because we don't have secondary sources. I say we can include these comments based on 1. ABOUTSELF 2.The sources that I am proposing (Carroll, West, News.com.au) those aren't great sources but they are allowed under PARITY. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no such policy on wikipedia that we avoid fringe theories. No one has said that there is. What I am saying is that we should not pick and choose items from a rambling podcast to report in our article, and that your points about PARITY and PRIMARY are irrelevant to the basic question of what should be covered in the first place.. MrOllie (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Is this source in use in the article yet? Silverseren^C 20:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not yet, but I would use that as one of the sources to support my proposed text. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

References

UAP

Is UAP defined anywhere in the article? —Tamfang (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It should be. It refers to unidentified aerial phenomena, which is essentially a wider-spanning term for stuff in the sky we don’t understand. Will revise if possible. OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)