Talk:Pentagon UFO videos

Untitled

Note: Previous discussion is here: Talk:USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents. That article was merged to here, but not the talk page.

New Credible Information

The unsubstantiated claims that these videos are parallax or IR flare are completely fringe, magical thinking level denial. The videos were not speculative when they were released by The Pentagon. Industry experts whom are IR/FLIR experts, expert military fighter pilots, and sr. officials in the military intelligence community have reviewed these videos. No IR flare was found, the parallax effect is a bogus theory because the images were taken with cooperating data through highly advanced sensor fusion through multiple military observers, and the objects were identified as highly advanced aerospace vehicles. The AAV/UAP followed the strike groups for weeks and had countless visual contacts. There are wild claims on this page claiming things that are completely bogus with disregard to the source, chain of custody, and quality of experts that have reviewed the videos. The "science writer" is a regular grad student claiming that he's smarter than the millions of dollars per individual that we have invested into our highly respected and skilled military personnel, whom are aeronautic and aerospace engineers with many years of experience in their respective fields. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SystemFailure0x5a (talk • contribs)

Yes, I tend to agree with SystemFailure0x5a. The new report that came out last week stated that the fact they were recorded by multiple types of radar, with visual confirmation at the same time, meant that they were physical flying objects. They added that there is no obvious explanation for the flying object. In terms of these being explained away as being IR flares or Parrallex errors... that ship has sailed. With no solid support, and the Govt report discounting it, I think the parrallex error information should come off. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Navy Patents

• High frequency gravitational wave generator
• Craft using an inertial mass reduction device
• The Navy Finally Speaks Up About Its Bizarre "UFO Patent" Experiments

Dr. Pais is working with the US Navy and has developed theoretical physics and real-world tests that are a reverse engineering attempt at the UAPs reported by The New York Times, AATIP, and the UAP Task Force. This technology is an attempt at explaining how the Tic-Tac UFOs operate and how we might be able to acheive Metric Engineering using subcritical waveguides, high-temp superconductors, high frequency gravitational wave generators, and inertial reduction. The technology is in the early stages and is not functional outside of the lab. China and Russia are also attempting to replicate the engineering of the UAPs. This strongly points to the fact that no current earth nation has the ability to create these UAP, let alone 20, 30, 40, or 50 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SystemFailure0x5a (talk • contribs)

In addition to the scientific issues with the text of the patent, there is a legal issue. If the UFOs are indeed advanced vehicles rather than, e.g., ball lighting, then the technology of their engines is prior art and the patents are invalid. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles

The Department of Physics at the University at Albany has published the following potential explanation in a public paper. Several Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) encountered by military, commercial, and civilian aircraft have been reported to be structured craft that exhibit ‘impossible’ flight characteristics. We consider a handful of well-documented encounters, including the 2004 encounters with the Nimitz Carrier Group off the coast of California, and estimate lower bounds on the accelerations exhibited by the craft during the observed maneuvers. Estimated accelerations range from almost 100g to 1000s of gs with no observed air disturbance, no sonic booms, and no evidence of excessive heat commensurate with even the minimal estimated energies. In accordance with observations, the estimated parameters describing the behavior of these craft are both anomalous and surprising. The extreme estimated flight characteristics reveal that these observations are either fabricated or seriously in error, or that these craft exhibit technology far more advanced than any known craft on Earth. In many cases, the number and quality of witnesses, the variety of roles they played in the encounters, and the equipment used to track and record the craft favor the latter hypothesis that these are indeed technologically advanced craft. The observed flight characteristics of these craft are consistent with the flight characteristics required for interstellar travel, i.e., if these observed accelerations were sustainable in space, then these craft could easily reach relativistic speeds within a matter of minutes to hours and cover interstellar distances in a matter of days to weeks, proper time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SystemFailure0x5a (talk • contribs)

The lack of a sonic boom is enough to call the conclusions into question. The reference to interstellar travel is implausible absent new Physics, because it would require far more propulsion mass than was allegedly observed. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Salvatore Pais & UAP Patents

Salvatore Pais, an American aerospace engineer, has published patents and papers for the US Navy that attempt to explain the characteristics of the UAP through reverse engineering and real-world experiments.

Fox News - Meta Materials Engineered at Atomic Level

On a recent Fox News Segment, Senator Harry Reid, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Christopher Mellon, and well respected scientist Dr. Jacques Vallée have analyzed recovered metamaterials from these advanced aerospace vehicles at a University lab and have determined they are made from metals that have been engineered at the "atomic level," which is a form of material science that we do not currently posses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SystemFailure0x5a (talk • contribs)

Attempts to connect patent filings with the videos is WP:OR. The rest is WP:UNDUE weight on deprecated WP:FRINGE views of the topic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

This stuff isn't credible. Pais's patents are generally considered to be nonsense by the scientific community. The MDPI paper hasn't been cited by anything (except a follow up conference presentation), and in any case one UFO-enthusiast associate professor is not the whole 'The Department of Physics at the University at Albany' as your version of the article claimed. - MrOllie (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Reid is not qualified to "analyze metamaterials," so I don't know why you're including him here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Whenever I saw this as part of the edits, any credibility was out the window (these are not new claims and were never supported by reliable evidence), raising questions about the other edits as well... —PaleoNeonate – 03:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The topic seems to be taken seriously here. In the mid 1990s, talk show host Art Bell was mailed a piece of metal from an anonymous source who claimed it was from the Roswell crash. Bell gave it to Linda Moulton Howe and they teased the radio audience for months with bogus “test results”. Somehow, it ended up with Blink182 and TTSA, where they are supposedly *still "testing" it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

GoFast is NOT fast at all. It also is not anywhere near the ocean surface

In regards to the 3 videos and in particular "GoFast" the first commenter states "There are wild claims on this page claiming things that are completely bogus with disregard to the source, chain of custody, and quality of experts that have reviewed the videos. The "science writer" is a regular grad student claiming that he's smarter than the millions of dollars per individual that we have invested into our highly respected and skilled military personnel, whom are aeronautic and aerospace engineers with many years of experience in their respective fields." I can confirm that "GoFast" is not fast at all. The claim is that the object is moving near the surface and at a high rate of speed. That is completely wrong. In fact when it is first boxed by the ATFLIR pod it was at a range of 4.4 nautical miles or 26,735 feet and at an negative angle to centerline of 26°. The F18 was at 25,000 feet and the object was 43° left of centerline and the F18 was at Mach .61 or about 287mph. That is enough information to give you the altitude. If you add several data points or way points you can then calculate the speed. Here is the calculation for altitude. Given c=26735 and ∠β=64°, a = 11,719.85261 b = 24,029.25883 ∠α = 26° = 0.45379 rad This means the object is about 11,720' below the F18 which places it at 13,280'. That is NOT near the surface. If you continue the calculations you will also find the object is moving at only about 35mph and that happens to be the same as the wind speed for that day off the Jacksonville, FL coast. Therefore the most likely answer is the object is a balloon. I have also calculated the size of the object to be roughly 2.1 to 2.4 meters. Around 6 or 7 feet in diameter.

Feel free to check my math but I believe you will find I am correct. Best Regards, Mike Turber Mike Turber (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The "range" is simply a software estimate made by the pod and can't be relied upon for a precise calculation of the distance to the target. It is therefore quite possible that the object is low to the water and moving fast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.237.57 (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Issues With Certain Terminology

The use of "Regarding the pseudoscientific explanations" is incorrect here and misleading. While most UFOlogy is without a doubt crazy, there are indeed credible military scientists, aeronautics engineers, aerospace/astrophysists, and so fourth that actually propose very scientific analysis of the ET and Non-Human Technology hypothesis. The scientific method is used extensively in these fields, and they are definitely not worthy of the pseudoscience claims.

For example, hypothesizing correctly that, if these UAP are indeed exhibiting the behavior AATIP/AAWSAP and The UAP Task Force are claiming, the Non-Terrestrial hypothesis becomes rather possible. In contrast, the "Experiment" the video game programmer conducted to demonstrate IR Glare was actually the very definition of pseudoscience. The US Navy Dept. of intelligence, the Director of Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works (Steve Justice), and The Pentagon have reviewed the videos and verified their legitimacy. The FLIR experts say the UAP is definitely rotating and it's not IR Glare. If you review the video yourself, you can check the background and notice the rotation of the camera happens separate and independent of the rotating UAP.

It would be best to simply remove the one pseudo-science reference in bold below from this article, because claiming something scientific is pseudoscience is de-legitimizing, while supporting an outdated and proven wrong "debunking", is further de-legitimizing. These statements should speak for themselves and should not lead the reader to believe they are pseudoscience. The reader should decide for themselves.

   As of 2020, the aerial phenomena recorded from the Nimitz and Roosevelt events are characterized by the Department of Defense as "unidentified".[22][23] Widespread media attention to these events has motivated theories and speculations from private individuals and groups about the underlying explanation(s), including those focused upon pseudoscientific topics such as ufology. Regarding the pseudoscientific explanations, writer Matthew Gault stated that these events "reflect the same pattern that's played out dozens of times before. Someone sees something strange in the sky ... and the public jumps to an illogical conclusion."[2]

   Because of parallax, perceived differences in motion can be interpreted as being due either to faster speeds or closer distances. In this animation, assuming that all the objects are stationary and that the observer is moving gives an illusion of considerable differences in distance between the three scenes. However, the animation only shows three different overlapping outlines moving at different speeds.

   Mundane, non-pseudoscientific explanations include instrument or software malfunction/anomaly/artifact,[24][25] human observational illusion (e.g., parallax) or interpretive error,[8][26][27][28] or common aircraft (e.g., a passenger airliner) or aerial device (e.g., weather balloon), with the science writer Mick West stating that one of the reported objects in these incidents are "most likely...a relatively slow-moving object like a bird or a balloon," and that "the jet filming it is moving fast, so this creates an illusion of speed against the ocean."[22][23] West stated that the GIMBAL video can be explained as footage of a distant plane with the apparent rotation actually being the glare in the IR camera rotating.[2]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SystemFailure0x5a‎ (talk • contribs) 06:00, April 5, 2021 (UTC)

It's pseudoscience. Jumping to the "it's aliens" assumption and working backwards to try and make the data fit the conclusion is the hallmark of pseudoscience. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

That ufology is pseudoscience is an uncontroversial assertion per our WP:RS, so there's no need to modify the text regarding so called "off world" speculations. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 18 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Opposing editors consider that the new coverage can be dealt with in the existing article, rather than splitting as suggested here. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Pentagon UFO videos → USS Nimitz and USS Roosevelt UFO incidents – Reasons detailed below Loganmac (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

This article now needs to be renamed as there's a new video confirmed by the Pentagon to be genuine (as in filmed by the US government). If one searches for "Pentagon UFO", you now mostly get articles pertaining to this new video, not the USS Nimitz and USS Theodore Roosevelt incidents. The event, from 2019, has been covered in extensive WP:RS (The Guardian CNN NBC CBS Business Insider Yahoo HuffPost Inquirer GlobalNews, etc.)

I propose this article be renamed to USS Nimitz and USS Roosevelt UFO incidents per common Wikipedia terminology (Aurora, Texas, UFO incident, Maury Island incident, Aztec, New Mexico, UFO incident, Mariana UFO incident, 1952 Washington, D.C. UFO incident, Carson Sink UFO incident, Kecksburg UFO incident, Jimmy Carter UFO incident, Berwyn Mountain UFO incident, 1976 Tehran UFO incident, Rendlesham Forest incident, 2004 Mexican UFO incident, Harbour Mille incident and a long etc. Loganmac (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me -- after all, we wouldn't have a single article called Pentagon UFO pictures lumping in every DoD photo of a purported UFO. Feoffer (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose move per WP:RECENTISM. you now mostly get articles pertaining to this new video isn't a reason to rename the article. The overwhelming coverage from last year that also identifies the existing 3 videos as Pentagon UFO videos (see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc.) doesn't go away just because the latest search results include recent coverage of another video released by the Pentagon. A better solution is to add a paragraph on the new video to the existing article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  Unsustainable deviation from established naming convention. Feoffer (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. The new videos should be integrated with this article instead. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

msn.com = Daily Mail?

A url recently added cites msn.com , however the content is credited to "Adam Schrader and Valerie Edwards For Dailymail.com" [7]. Daily Mail is one of Wikipedia's most well-known deprecated sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problem. Msn.com is a news aggregator, they don't exercise real editorial oversight over the news they carry, and this should properly be attributed to the DM, meaning it shouldn't be used at all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

60 Minutes video clip on official Youtube channel. May 16, 2021

Youtube: Navy pilots describe encounters with UFOs. 13:47 minutes.

Transcript of above video: UFOs regularly spotted in restricted U.S. airspace, report on the phenomena due next month. 60 Minutes. CBS News. The same exact video as on Youtube is embedded in the transcript article. From transcript concerning frequency (emphasis added):

Former Navy pilot Lieutenant Ryan Graves calls whatever is out there a security risk. He told us his F/A-18F squadron began seeing UAPs hovering over restricted airspace southeast of Virginia Beach in 2014 when they updated their jet's radar, making it possible to zero in with infrared targeting cameras. Bill Whitaker: So you're seeing it both with the radar and with the infrared. And that tells you that there is something out there? Ryan Graves: Pretty hard to spoof that. These photographs were taken in 2019 in the same area. The Pentagon confirms these are images of objects it can't identify. Lieutenant Graves told us pilots training off the Atlantic Coast see things like that all the time. Ryan Graves: Every day. Every day for at least a couple years. Bill Whitaker: Wait a minute, every day for a couple of years? Ryan Graves: Uh-huh.

Lt. Cmdr. Alex Dietrich is interviewed publicly on video for the first time.

Article: Navy pilots recall "unsettling" 2004 UAP sighting. 2021 May 16. 60 Minutes Overtime. By Jacquelyn DiNick. Shorter video there (6:45 minutes) does not work for me in Firefox browser. I can see it in Chrome browser. From the article (emphasis added):

Cmdr. Dave Fravor and Lt. Cmdr. Alex Dietrich were training with the USS Nimitz Carrier Strike Group when a UAP encounter occurred over the Pacific Ocean. ... Whitaker interviewed two former Navy pilots, Cmdr. Dave Fravor and Lt. Cmdr. Alex Dietrich, who said they witnessed something "unsettling" and unexplainable while flying over the Pacific Ocean in November 2004. Fravor is a graduate of the TOPGUN naval flight program. He was a commander of the F/A-18F squadron on the USS Nimitz at the time of the encounter. Dietrich, a former F/A-18F pilot, has never before spoken publicly about what she saw that day.

For reference purposes about the frequency: A 1:23 minute Youtube video is embedded farther down in this Washington Post article:

• For some Navy pilots, UFO sightings were an ordinary event: ‘Every day for at least a couple years’. By Reis Thebault. May 17, 2021 article.

The short video is on the 60 minutes official Youtube channel. It has the part where Lieutenant Ryan Graves talked about frequency. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Mick West, YouTuber

The recent edit warring over this is vandalism. Mick West's YouTube channel has a mere 22k subscribers and is used primarily to support his writing. Not to mention that his article here only even mentions his channel in the external links. If it continues, I'll start a thread at AIV. If Crater+67 cares to show up here and offer some explanation as to why they're convinced Mick West is just a YouTuber, then maybe we can take a different tact. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Apparently just sour grapes, since there are plenty of sources to cite that he's known as a science writer [8], [9], [10]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Yup. I assumed this was an honest mistake: the editor knows Mick from his YouTube channel. So I checked out Mick's channel and watched a few videos. There's no way anyone could be a fan of his YT videos and not know he's primarily a writer. And his article here only even mentions his YT channel in the external links. Hence why I call this vandalism. It might be a serious lack of competence, but that's actually pretty rare. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

USA Today just featured an opinion piece by him.  Ohsin  12:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Rewritten the Luis Elizondo page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I just finished rewriting this page. Elizondo is more than notable for his own page. He is all over the media these days, they have extensively interviewed him and he is mentioned and discussed in multiple independent secondary reliable sources, including ones when the journalist is also notable.

According to the redirect discussion for the last Elizondo page, what was written was a target for vandalism. And attempts to add content about only the videos kept happening and not sources for the Bio. That is not the case here. What I created is Elizondo focused and I appeal to you to review my work and not assume that it is similar to the page that had been reverted before. Sgerbic (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, here is my sandbox. Trying to edit on my phone isn’t the easiest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sgerbic/sandbox Sgerbic (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Two of your sources are blog entries. Those won't fly. And none of those sources seem to be about Elizondo, which brings up serious questions about notability. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough about the blog entries. Though Sheaffer is notable for his work on the topic all by himself. The blogs are supplemental and not to prove notability. The rest of the sources are RS and discuss Elizondo enough to pass notability. Sgerbic (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

And here is another article, USAToday https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/05/17/ufo-report-include-unexplainable-sightings-former-official-says/5127064001/ Sgerbic (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Though Sheaffer is notable for his work on the topic all by himself.

You can't just assert that and expect to be taken seriously. You need independent, reliable sources about the subject to show notability. Blogs don't help you at all here. And again, that USA Today article isn't about Elizondo, he has a passing mention in the article. So that doesn't help satisfy WP:N either.

Finally... this is completely off topic for this page. Feel free to work on the Elizondo article, but this page is about providing suggestions to improve the Pentagon UFO videos article, not Elizondo. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I tried doing just that Hand - but the Elizondo page now directs to THIS one. The talk page for the Elizondo page is gone. I agree, there should be a Luis Elizondo Wikipedia page independent of this one, but that was redirected a few hours ago to this page.Sgerbic (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Here is a Herald-Tribune article that talks about his childhood https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/2021/01/03/riverview-high-school-grad-luis-elizondo-forces-ufos-into-mainstream/4064093001/. Multiple articles created in the last few days mention him in the title of the article. This guy is all over the media right now, he is the to-do guy on UFO's and his fame is growing. Look, these articles are coming out every day and as we get closer to June it is only going to escalate. Editors need to have somewhere to put these RS citations, we are going to have this discussion over and over again. It is a disservice to readers to ignore this, it's not just about the videos this guy released, it is about him now. I mean what's it going to take, does he need to win Eurovision? At some point we just need to put a fork in all this content and say we are done, I get that. But this isn't going away, so I suggest that we create the page and keep it moderated and watched.Sgerbic (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I advise keeping the Elizondo BLP in your sandbox for at least a week or so. The "June UFO report" could turn out to be a heavily publicized nothing. Yet if there is a sudden onslaught of normally reliable sources indulging in WP:SENSATIONAL coverage of the “We’re not saying aliens, but ALIENS” variety and inevitably focusing on Elizondo, then the notability issues surrounding his BLP can be reconsidered anew. BTW, I think your draft is a good example of how to handle a WP:FRINGEBLP. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Sgerbic, That's a good source, which is about the subject. Make sure you include it in your draft. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Out today in Politico Elizondo has filed a complaint against the DOD, accusing them of trying to do a smear campaign against him. His lawyer is also a UFOlogist. Politico states "Elizondo has become a minor celebrity since he retired from the Pentagon in October 2017". https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/26/ufo-whistleblower-ig-complaint-pentagon-491098? Sgerbic (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Elizondo suggests we open our minds to the possibilities. "These vehicles may originate from outer space, inner space, or even the space in between," he says. "We could be dealing with an advanced, self-replicating AI which communicates with itself instantaneously across vast distances using a quantum internet..." Quantum internet? He certainly is active this week. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

He sure is colorful - This is what I'm talking about - the story has shifted to be about him. There is a lot of controversy over if Elizondo actually worked for this UFO agency within the DOD. The Pentagon and FICA requests are turning up nill. It seems that the only documentation for this claim is Elizondo, his friends and The History Channel. I tried to write the page showing the controversy but not allowing me the editor to have an opinion. He is interviewed all the time in the media these days because they think he is credible, but then there are other reports, including the one I just posted and Louie quoted that show this man is very much in the paranormal world. I quoted RS journalists who gave their impression of him. The story isn't that this guy left the DOD and had run this important UFO project, and he leaked some UFO videos and now is interviewed about them. NO that was so 2017. The story is that he may or may not have worked on this UFO project, he left and works for a UFO film company that put out a video on The History Channel and according to several RS is pushing this UFO agenda to a credulous media for purposes of their own (fame, money, other). The Pentagon videos are a totally different Wikipedia page. And more is coming out, on Twitter today Elizondo's lawyer said more will be coming out this Friday. What that means, I don't know. But readers are going to want to know who this guy is, and editors are going to want a place to put the upcoming articles. Come on let's do this! Sgerbic (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

He is interviewed all the time in the media these days because they think he is credible Or perhaps because he provides entertainment value as le fou du jour? That does not make him non-notable, and perhaps it is time for a reliably-sourced, non-sensational, non-promotional article. But assumptions of credibility seem to me nonviable when phrases like anti-gravity, instantaneous acceleration, and trans-medium travel appear. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

We need a page on Luis Elizondo immediately. He's a former head of a government program, a notable whistleblower cited in many mainstream reliable sources, not related to one single event (not WP:SINGLEEVENT) as previously discussed (the GIMBAL, GOFAST and FLIR videos release) as there are now more videos released outside of his tennure, and he isn't involved with To the Stars (company) anymore, which was the reason the previous deletion was based on (his only relevance apparently was being associated with that company). He's also the star of a TV show (Unidentified: Inside America's UFO Investigation). The BLP and all content-related discussion are beyond the problem of the article existing or not, as well as any association with paranormal "crazyness" (we have a lot of articles about paranormal lunatics). The article wouldn't be WP:RECENTISM as he has been relevant and featured in news since 2017, and will continue to be after this year's UAP report. Loganmac (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I see he's got connections to George Knapp [11] and promotes himself as a "whistleblower"...much like Bob Lazar but with a better business plan. By the way, good story by Jason Colavito in the The New Republic [12]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 2021 US government report on UFOs/UAPs

I've added a new section with the UAP report, released yesterday - which is mostly discussing the recent UFO videos and trying to interpret them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs) 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• US intelligence community releases long-awaited UFO report. By Katie Bo Williams, Zachary Cohen and Jeremy Herb, CNN. June 25, 2021. From article (emphasis added):

"We absolutely do believe what we're seeing are not simply sensor artifacts. These are things that physically exist," the official said, noting that 80 of the reported incidents included data from multiple sensors. In 11 cases, pilots reported a "near-miss" collision with these strange objects.

--Timeshifter (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes interestingly, the report says these are *physical existing objects* - recordered simultanously by radar and visual confirmation from the pilots. The fact that the Government now sees them as (1)a possible threat (2) a possible safety issue as jets may crash into them! means the government viewpoint is now that these UAPs exist and real.. they just don't know what they are. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Parallax Graphic

Hi all, I'd like to discuss removing the parrallex graphic. This is really a fringe explanation - the Government report that came out last week specifically said that these were real physical objects, observed by various types of radar and the human eye. They said there was no obvious explanation. I think we have moved beyond having stupid explanations like weather balloons and parrallex errors...these are just sceptics fringe hocum, and the sort of explanations people were offering in the past but no longer plausible. Having a diagram in the article definitely gives it more weight than it deserves WP:UNDUE.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Have you read the report? [13] Note the five potential explanatory categories mentioned. Weather balloons definitely fall within the category of "real physical objects". And as MP mentioned, we have high quality cited sources for what is in the article. Your misinterpretation of the ODNI report doesn't render those sources unreliable or fringe. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the report, have you? My point is these recordings clearly aren't explained by saying they are weather balloons or parrallex errors. That isn't a fair summary of the report at all. They confirmed one weather balloon, and that is a possible cause, but righting off the report to Parrallex errors and weather balloons is too much weight towards sceptism and WP:UNDUE. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The report says; "Potential National Security Challenges. We currently lack data to indicate any UAP are part of a foreign collection program or indicative of a major technological advancement by a potential adversary. We continue to monitor for evidence of such programs given the counter intelligence challenge they would pose, particularly as some UAP have been detected near military facilities or by aircraft carrying the USG’s most advanced sensor systems." Does sound like they think its just a stray weather balloon?Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants and I discussed this on his talk page, he has suggested that the Parrallex error graphic be moved to the sceptics section, as that where it belongs really/ as opposed to a general explanation for the videos. I'm happy with that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm just confirming that Deathlibrarian has it right, so you don't need to navigate my wack TOC to see for yourself.See my response to Jojo, below. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Deathlibrarian: please go ahead. I agree with your conclusions. While you're at it please also take a critical look at the rest of this article's contents. For some reason, this page is decided upon by a small number of fringe/outdated WP:DUE-violating agenda-pushing editors. I made an attempt at correcting that here but it was reverted in full (if restoring some of it note that the "nyt1" reference wasn't the right reference). Instead of endlessly bickering back-and-forth on the talk page with that small number of editors I then made another attempt for at least notifying the reader about the issues with WP:DUE and WP:NPOV via hatnotes which was also reverted in full. Maybe you could review some of these changes and correct some errors, inaccuracies, biases & non-neutrality & unduly weightedness and outdatedness in the contents of this article. Thanks for being one of the very few people in the world who care about Wikipedia's performance on important but difficult subjects such as this. --Prototyperspective (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Your edits look entirely non-neutral and lean heavily towards WP:PROFRINGE material. I think that LuckyLouie was right to revert you, and your tagging was reverted because no-one has presented a policy-based argument at talk regarding the neutrality of the article. When I reverted your tagging, I invited you to make your case here, which you have -until now- declined to do. That reads to me like you don't have a case to make, and your comment here supports that interpretation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose moving the parallax graphic to another section of the article. Parallax, being a physical phenomenon that affects biological visual systems and artificial optical/detection devices alike, remains a reliably-sourced, non-fringe, potential explanation that is not ruled out as a contributing factor in the ONI report. That said, I am not wedded to that particular figure, as readers could learn all about the phenomenon at parallax, whereat there are several, helpful graphic examples. There is currently no sceptics section to move the figure into (as suggested above), so although I oppose moving the graphic within the current article, I would not oppose "moving" it (the graphic, not the reliably-sourced text content) out of the article entirely. JoJo Anthrax (talk)

Nobody has made the claim that all of the UFO observations are the result of parallax, only that parallax is a plausible explanation for some. As such, the image should remain where it is unless and until there is a more appropriate section to park it. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I could have sworn there was a section entitled "skeptical response" here, and it was under that mistaken assumption that I agreed with Deathlibrarian that we could move this. Furthermore, I could have sworn that this graphic was in the "release of videos" section. I see now that I was mistaken on both matters. The current section is the proper place for it, and I will accept up to two (2) trouts for my mistakes on a first come, first serve basis. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I think the parrallex error graphic *prominent place in the article* is pushing one particular view, and there is no evidence that it is a major factor in these videos... in fact, it may not be a factor at all. The recent report mentions nothing about parrallax errors being a major factor in these videos. It belongs in the sceptic section or not in the article at all. As a compromise (which is what we should be doing as editors) that I hope will keep us all happy, I'm happy to go with ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants original suggestion, and *create* a sceptic section (just using the current text and putting a subheading on it) and put it in that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I never suggested we create a skeptical response section. Also, please read WP:GOODBIAS for an understanding of why you're wrong with respect to neutrality. WP:YESBIAS is another essay addressing this. We should not give equal credence to claims or implications of alien visitors (and the emphasis on the unknown is absolutely giving credence to the implications of aliens, as it minimizes more mundane explanations.) The complaint here that this image is "pushing one particular view" is misguided: that's not a bug, that's a feature. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

No I'm just saying you said it could be moved into the sceptics section (and as you've noted, there in fact isn't one). *I'm* suggesting we create one and move it in there. Would you agree with the creation of that section, and have it moved in there as a compromise? Deathlibrarian (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I oppose creating a "sceptics" section per WP:GEVAL and WP:FRINGE. The implication would be that these reportedly real objects (which, by the way, being real would be readily subject to physical phenomena that include parallax) are something other than terrestrially-derived. That implication is not supported by any positive, reliably-sourced evidence. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The mainstream view (that's it not aliens) needs to be represented throughout the article, not walled off into a sceptics section. - MrOllie (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't think I would. I feel that Pentagon UFO Report is the proper article on which to prioritize (but not push) the ODNI report's conclusions. This article should prioritize what the RSes have said about the videos, and the highest quality sources are skeptical, so this article should properly adopt that mindset. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

OK unfortunatley, we don't have a compromise on moving the parrallex diagram out of where it is currently in with the sceptics text, so my vote is with the diagram being removed from the article, and people can follow the link to read about parrallex errors in the specific article about it, if they wish. Deathlibrarian (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

(ec) No, a skeptics section isn't appropriate. The experts being cited are not proposing that their explanations cover all ufo reports. And their pushback on claims of alien/off-world/inner space vehicles are perfectly in line with ODNI conclusions that aliens are, as explanations go, the least likely explanation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The issue of trying to explain the videos as being parrallex errors has nothing to do with "aliens". It's simply the fact that the parrallax error explanation is included, in a prominent way, and it seems out of line with(and not supported by) recent articles on the videos which say nothing about parrallex error as an explanation, and mostly which seem to say there is NO explanation see articles here and here and here. This article mentions it only briefly. Even the report itself does not mention the concept of parrallax errors (run a keyword search on it if you don't believe me). I've tried to work out some compromise, but as editors here continue to support this being a prominent explanation (if anything, with commentary is leaning to the conclusion its actual Chinese or Russian craft), then as mentioned, I think its a WP:DUE issue and we should get more comments from an RFC.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The potential explanations section is expected to already express normal scientific skepticism, which should not be isolated as if it was a particular opinion, that a "skeptics view" section would suggest (WP:GEVAL matters). Similarly, criticism sections are discouraged by the manual of style. —PaleoNeonate – 08:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

RFC - Removal of Parallax Graphic (Improper wording - resubmitted below)

I propose that the Parrallax graphic is removed from the article (but leave the text), as a it is positioned as a prominent explanation, given that this is not supported by recent commentary on the videos here and here and here and here nor by the White House report. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

This is an improper RFC. The RFC statement is supposed to be neutral and brief, this fails on both counts. - MrOllie (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, I have shortened it and tried to make it more neutral. How does that look now? Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

This is still not remotely a neutral statement. You should pull the rfc tag. - MrOllie (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok I have shortened it even more and tried to make it more neutral - but if I remove anymore text, I believe I'm not actually explaining the issue for people to comment on???Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

You're not supposed to explain the issue or make an argument. You should read some other RFC statements. - MrOllie (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the feedback. I've removed the tag, and re-submitted, I trust this is more neutral.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

RFC - Removal of Parallax Graphic

I propose that the Parrallax graphic is removed from the article (but leave the text) Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Why? EEng 03:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support (as nominator) - I propose that the Parrallax graphic is removed from the article (but leave the text), given that the text and prominent graphic seem to propose it as a prominent explanation, where that is not supported by recent commentary here and here and here. This article mentions it only briefly on the videos as a likely explanation, and the White House report on the videosthe report. None of these articles, including the White House report, mention the concept of parrallax at all. The current discussion is not that it is some kind of pallalax error, but that they are possibly Chinese or Russian technology. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment As JoJo Anthrax has mentioned, if people want to see diagrams about it, they can follow the link off to the parallax article, where there are plenty. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons outlined in the sections above by me and multiple others. The argument for exclusion is that the graphic somehow constitutes skeptical POV pushing, but has been explained more than once now, not only is it not that, but the skeptical POV is, in fact, the neutral POV. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • No.The argument here is that the explanation of the videos, by way of the fact that they are simply parrallax error, is not supported by the recent discussion of the Navy videos, so it doesn't appear to be prominent factor - in particular compared to the primary proposition outlined in the articles, that is, the craft are possibly Russian or Chinese (not weather balloons, parrallax errors or Aliens). The prominent positioning of the parrallax argument is not inline with the sources - see WP:UNDUE - "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

    No I would refer to the previous discussions, where your words are clear.

    Simply put, parrallax error is not a prominent viewpoint in the context of these videos That is demonstrably false. Parallax is mentioned in several of the sources used in this article, and as I explained at my talk, these experts are more trustworthy than the government experts, who have well-defined (albeit proper) biases towards a non-natural explanation.

    Note that I don't intend to relitigate this with you, and that the mere opening of this RfC after you had gotten such a clear answer to your question already is problematic enough, even without considering the decidedly non-neutral way you initially worded it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

    • Hang on a sec, this RFC is about WP:Due, why are you bringing up the previous discussion which I have dropped and am no longer advocating?As far as I can see, you haven't addressed the issue in this particular RFC at all. Also, you seem unhappy with how I did my original RFC, well its the first one I have done, and I pulled the original one when it was pointed out (rather patiently by MrOllie) I had done it improperly, and resubmitted it in a neutral fashion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Given the Pentagon UFO Report release and its mostly unexplained findings, we have a weird case where a skeptic becomes the fringe opinion. Keep the text, but the image is WP:UNDUE unless it becomes the prevailing theory among multiple notable skeptics. If and when it becomes solved (most likely never), we can add it. The "he's the most qualified" argument is poor when the people he's arguing against are trained pilots or scientists, which he's not. If one needs an explanation of the parallax effect, clicking on the article link is easy, the image gives undue prominance to what isn't in a lot of WP:RS, and can trick the reader into thinking it's the "correct" answer. Loganmac (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

  A position does not turn into fringe when someone in a government body opposes it. Otherwise, the whole of science would have become fringe when Biden's predecessor shit on it. Wikipedia is not in the habit of brown-nosing: the criterion for a good source is reliability, not political or military power. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

  the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field" See here A position is a fringe viewpoint when it is not supported by the mainstream RS. The mainstream RS does not support the viewpoint that the Pentagon videos are simply a result of Parrallax error. I suspect, its only seriously advocated by one person.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  The article does not make any claim that "that the Pentagon videos are simply a result of Parrallax[sic] error". jps (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The reasons given for removal now are as bad as the reasons given before. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The ODNI report did not issue a blanket statement that all previous UFO reports were completely unexplainable, or explainable by only one explanation. Here is the relevant quote from the report: There are probably multiple types of UAP requiring different explanations based on the range of appearances and behaviors described in the available reporting. Our analysis of the data supports the construct that if and when individual UAP incidents are resolved they will fall into one of five potential explanatory categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, USG or U.S. industry developmental programs, foreign adversary systems, and a catchall “other” bin. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes ,but it certainly does not propose that parrallax error is a significant explanation, as indicated by the weight we gave to it in the wiki article. It mention the phrase "natural atmospheric phenomena" once, and doesn't discuss it. In fact, it does not mention the word "parrallax" at all. Would the Government be concerned about threats to national security, and safety issues for the pilots from these craft, simply if they thought the recordings were a simple parrallax error?.Deathlibrarian (talk)
    • What kind of jejune response is this? It doesn't even make any sense. I question whether you even understand what the concept of a "parallax error" is. WP:COMPETENCE is required, and you seem to be skirting on the edge of this requirement. jps (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Hey jps- I'm not responding to this, and here's something you should probably read
• Oppose - summoned by bot. I like the graphic, and having it allows us to shorten the descriptive text. Words cannot convey the effect as well. I shortened the caption and linked to the parallax article, as a compromise solution. I felt standalone context was necessary. If anyone disagrees, or think that this somehow violates the spirit of the RfC, feel free to revert. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - worth a thousand words, here. Applicable to a wide range of observations mentioned on the article, necessary to disentangle when analyzing such reports. – SJ + 20:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Unfortunate, but all I see here is a lot of editors ignoring Wikipedia policy on undue weight, and pushing a line of argument not supported by the RS. Practically no commentary is saying these videos are explained by parrallax errors, compared to a majority of the experts and witnesses who are stating other reasons (foremost that they are Chinese or Russian tech, which may be a threat to the US). Explaining these videos as parrallax error, is a tiny minority viewpoint. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It is a strawman to claim that our article "explains" these videos as "parrallax error(sic)". I'm not sure why you think otherwise. jps (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying the parrallax diagram isn't there to explain the videos? why else would it be there? Is it merely decorative??Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

(turns out this comment of mine was the answer to a question asked later, so I moved it up here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)) The parallax thing is just an error people often make when they tell others about what they saw. It is never an "explanation for" a sighting, it is an explanation for inconsistencies within a report of a sighting and, if people are aware of it, makes explanation of the sighting easier by taking unrealistic claims about flying speeds with a grain of salt. UFOlogists tend to cling to the wording of reports, ignoring the fact that "what I saw" always actually means "what I believe I saw". Any serious attempt at talking about UFOs must make that fact clear. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Not that I want to get into a big discussion about it, but parrallax is not an explanation for these videos, because I'm pretty sure parrallax error is only somthing that affects human — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs) 08:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

That is what I said. Nobody says anything else. But I also said other stuff which answers your clucking about it not explaining any videos: it explains details of sighting, which UFOlogists usually ignore, because they want to not explain flying objects and not to explain flying objects.

How about you leave this Talk page alone for a while? You are clearly confused, you repeat yourself, you ignore what people say, you stop in mid-sentence before you come to the signature, and you generally keep flooding this RFC by leaving your opinion turds everywhere. I cannot think of the exact wording at the moment, but there is a WP:something term for a single person trying to dominate an RFC like this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Support As I explained in the earlier thread, I do not think the parallax graphic (as opposed to the descriptive text) is needed here. I also do not think its retention would be particularly onerous, or likely to confuse any readers. For the record, my weak support for this proposal does not mean I agree with the comment that we have a weird case where a skeptic becomes the fringe opinion, and I reject the claim that opposing editors are ignoring Wikipedia policy on undue weight, and pushing a line of argument not supported by the RS. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Regretful support I really like the graphic, but parallax does appear to have been excluded as the primary factor, so it probably has slipped into UNDUE territory. Feoffer (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Per WP:DUE it is inappropriate to give that much weight to the parallax explanation in the article. This is a violation of Wikipedia policies just like that of WP:NPOV with wordings like calling theories "pseudoscientific" or the "as is typical in the context of such incidents, extraordinary [...]" in the lead. It is especially concerning due to the article clearly under-representing information about theories that editors here apparently disfavor even though they are widely discussed in lots reliable sources. As the parallax explanation was not found to be a viable explanation for the Pentagon-confirmed peculiar UFO sightings, the mention of "(e.g., parallax)" is more than enough reference to that particular explanation. The article should inform about theories, viewpoints in rough accordance to how widely they are being discussed in third-party media which reports far more extensively about explanations that involve the existence and direct or indirect detection/inferring of extraterrestrials (which also appears to be more plausible and in better accordance to Occam's razor but that is probably irrelevant here).

If there needs be this much lengthy discussion on talk pages to resolve such obvious problems with articles with even just hatnotes informing about these problems getting removed entirely Wikipedia is having a big problem (I'd say that problem is a lack of editors alongside lack of spent time and effort for research about an article's topic before reverting edits to it).

Other Arguments like necessary to disentangle when analyzing such reports are simply irrelevant here as this is not a page meant to be used to disentangle UFO reports but to inform about the Pentagon UFO videos and the Pentagon UFO report (note that the latter is larger in scope than those few videos) and sourced information that directly relates to these. Concerning the argument(/s ?) I like the graphic, and having it allows us to shorten the descriptive text I'd say remove the descriptive text about this specific effect entirely – it's enough to say observational errors and maybe list a few wikilinked examples even though they can be discarded at this point. (My argumentation here is also relevant to other improvements of the article which are long overdue but less relevant now that people are not as interested in the article as earlier.)

To make things very clear WP:NPOV is crucial to Wikipedia and that page says the following: neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. It does not say "skeptical – however you define 'skeptical', which is always relative to something to be skeptical about, and select the explanation to be skeptical™ about over those to be supportive of in terms of coverage – is the neutral viewpoint and all other viewpoints must subordinate to whatever was found to be the "correct" "skeptical" range of explanations.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Nah. The idea that we need to guard against "skeptical" opinions is one that has been deprecated over the years in spite of the litany of WP:PROFRINGE attempts. See WP:YWAB, e.g. jps (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Not what I was saying at all. In short it violates WP:DUE (as well as WP:NPOV and science-based rationality).

The WP:FRINGE theory here is that all of these peculiar UFO events can be explained by things like mundane weather balloons in addition to a conspiracy theory involving false testimonies being made by lots of military personnel from various countries. We don't need to "guard" against such theories but look at what (and to what extent) the sources are covering and not neglect any significant viewpoints and theories. The violation of WP:FRINGE is tied to that of WP:DUE so I didn't bring it up (from that page: Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is.) (emphasis mine). --Prototyperspective (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The WP:FRINGE theory here is that all of these peculiar UFO events can be explained by things like mundane weather balloons ^{[citation REALLY needed]} ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. This is straight-up ufology talking points. jps (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Meh. I put the graphic in because a few of the sources sourced in the article at the time mention the parallax effect and I thought the graphic useful for illustrative purposes. If there are other images that are better suited to explain concepts for this article, that's fine with me. I'm not sure I understand the arguments over what may or may not be a "primary factor" in the context of this article. The parallax effect is simply a thing that any analysis of these ideas will have to address, and we have at least three sources that I see which mention this as a consideration. I don't see reliable sources that claim that this is not the case. jps (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Three articles...and this is exactly my point. I can reference at least 30 articles I have handy (and happy to link them here if you like), or more that discuss Russian or Chinese technology, and don't mention parrallax error at all. May be it was more supported when you put the diagram in? But in the main, from all the articles I've read, it's no longer supported as an explanation now. The articles and the Pentagon report have showed a shift in attitude and moved on now, its no longer about weather balloons/pilots seeing things, and the article needs to accept that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
    • If you have 30 articles that don't make mention of parallax as an issue with these sorts of videos and accounts, I hardly think you've found a good library for this subject. WP:WEIGHT is not done on the basis of WP:SOURCECOUNTING. jps (talk) 04:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
      • jpsSee WP:WEIGHT "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." As far as I can see, there are only three references to parallax in the article that support it (and that I know of) and there is only one expert who is supporting it - Mick West, who is a professional skeptic. Seems to me that's a small minority.Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose There seems to be enough emphasis on parallax as a mundane explanation/part of an explanation that having a small illustration of it is within the realm of due weight and good taste. And even if one mundane explanation is later supplanted by another, equally mundane one, keeping track of the history of that process is generally a good idea, and one way or another, it'll have to be addressed. Keeping the illustration makes sense. XOR'easter (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support for 'purely aesthetic and functional reasons. We can quibble about policy and guidelines for centuries, but I find that the moving animation that can't be easily paused or deactivated is visually distracting, and hinders the ability to read and comprehend the text. It's like trying to read a book while a strobe-light flashes. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  Now that is what a good reason looks like. No comparison with any of that "skeptical POV is fringe" crap. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: For those claiming undue weight, I would look at the article as a whole. There are multiple other illustrations in the article, including the videos themselves, which at first glance appear (to many people) to have extraordinary explanations. Without this, there would be none illustrating the ways in which this type of video can have relatively mundane explanations. As such, it is removal that would be a violation of due weight. The value of the graphic is not in demonstrating the parallax effect explanation specifically, but rather as an example of the broader class of mundane explanations in general. Sunrise (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  I don't agree with that view. There are multiple graphics in the article, yes, but only one diagram (with a bunch of explanatory text) that is explaining it - the other graphics aren't explaining it, they are images from the recordings.If we are going to have one explanation, that is dominant in the article, it should be from something the sources are supporting, not something the sources have dismissed(or in the main, not considering as a likely explanation). It's misleading to the reader. The *overall impression* to the reader, because of the undue weight/prominence of the diagram and all the text, is that parallax is a likely factor in the videos, and the RS is not supporting that at all. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  I don't see anyone dismissing the fact that the parallax effect exists. Can you point to one source that indicates that? jps (talk) 04:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  I didn't say the concept didn't exist, clearly it does. I said its not being discussed as an actual possible reason in this case. I have about 15 articles I've read, with links - they largely focus on the possibility of it being foreign advanced tech, either manned or drones. The days of putting this down to pilots with bad eyesight or weather balloons seem to be behind us now (except for that one writer I gather) Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  Similarly, the GHITs speak for themselves.....

  China and "pentagon UFO video" - 35,300 hits

  Russia and "pentagon UFO video" - 24,100 hits

  Drone and "pentagon UFO video" - 29,900 hits

  parallax and "pentagon UFO video" - 8 Hits Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I don't care about the animated graphics, if the fact that it is animated is problematic, it could be expressed differently with a diagram. However, the text and sources pertaining to parallax should remain. —PaleoNeonate – 08:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Mick West no longer needed

In light of the report, we should consider excising Mick West's rather OR-esque conjectures about birds, balloons, and lens rotation. West's speculation was essential toprovide balance against FRINGE youtubers screaming little green men, but now that we have real DoD sources has weighing in that this is un-IDed foreign tech, readers no longer need to know about one random science writer's discarded conjectures about blurry birds. Feoffer (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that every video referenced has been claimed to be un-IDed foreign tech. Can you provide a quote that says that? jps (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

He is a noted skeptic, and gets high profile interviews, but his stuff is way out of line with current commentary, and the DOD report. It's a bit odd, to be honest.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It's relevant since it's related to the video. It's also not contradicted by any official claim, —PaleoNeonate – 08:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)