Talk:Disappearance of Frederick Valentich

Various old comments

Creapy! This is creeeeepy!

• I am uncertain as to how an entry such as yours is rational discussion of the Frederick Valentich Incident, but forthrightly conceded is that the episode remains one of the best-documented and least-explicable cases in the annals of investigation into unexplained aerial phenomena. --Chr.K. 00:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"Metal shrieking noises after the unknown craft hovering above yours" is perfectly normal and shouldn't be a reason to panic,its probably just rats. Or maybe misguided weather balloons.

Indeed. And perhaps you would make a killing in stand-up comedy. --Chr.K. 04:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Additions

Added two external links, one to The Valentich Mystery by John Auchettl, and the other, perhaps more engaging, to the Frederick Valentich Accident report by www.ufologie.net. --Chr.K. 02:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Changing the "so-called" wording, since what else is it supposed to be? His completely vanishing from any societal knowledge of his whereabouts openly qualifies his disappearance as a genuine one. --Chr.K. 10:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"More mundane explanations have been put forward (that Valentich ... played a prank before committing suicide by deliberately crashing his Cessna), but none of these explanations is entirely satisfactory" - How is him playing a prank before committing suicide not a satisfactory explanation? It seems like a perfectly plausible explanation to me. A prank gone wrong or a pre-suicide prank is much more believable than the other possibilities.

If you'd bother to do any study of the material at all, you'd know that there were plenty of other sightings of unidentified aerial phenomena in the days leading up to, as well as following, 21 October 1978 in the southern Australian region, with the day of Valentich's disappearance being the most intense day of "activity"; also, if you'd check, you'd understand that an a plane like a Cessna 182 would leave behind some trace near where it had gone down, instead of all investigation, up to the degree of sounding of the seas in a 200-mile radius of his last reported location, yielding nothing. To put it another way, if it was a successful suicide attempt, then I'm sure the United States military would love to get their hands on his methods, for use of molecular disintegration of a given target. --4.224.201.107 10:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

On further thought, I'll put up a Wikisource page giving the public-domain detailed report issued by the Australian Department of Transport, for the perusal of any and all. --4.224.201.107 10:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Chr.K. 12:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems incredibly unlikely to me that someone would feel in a "prank-ish" mood before deliberately taking their own life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.208.156 (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

1978 Sightings

I add this comment as "one who was there". In October 1978, my family and I lived in Hobart Tasmania. Indeed, in the weeks that followed the incident my father and I were two of many who saw lights over this part of Australia. I can well remember the incident and a wave of other sightings that were reported in the newspapers at the time (The Murcury). For what it is worth, when considering this incident, you should not think of what happened to Valentich in isolation. There were sightings of lights and objects over S. Australia, the Bass Strait and New Zealand (i.e. the same geographical region) during the later half of 1978 and on into 1979. Some of these were even filmed and photographed, this together with witness statements must make these sightings one of the best reported UFO flaps to have taken place. With this in mind, I think that the Valentich dissappearence is one of the most credible instances of a UFO encounter, particularly since it may have been witnessed from the ground at the same time. As to an explination- UFO equals Unidentified Flying Object i.e. something given the circumstances we cannot then explain. It does not have to mean "little green men".

Bass Strait and NZ are in "the same geographical region"? They are actually further apart than London and Athens. Moriori 06:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

And as such, are comparable to the UFO waves that have occasionally occurred over Europe. The region in question is Oceania in general. --Chr.K. 22:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As a complete aside, I need to thank you for being one of the most sensible commentators on the subject of unexplained aerial phenomena I've ever seen. --Chr.K. 12:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Australians in Victoria and Tasmania consider New Zealand to be pretty close. We have a different sense of distance to Europeans.--Senor Freebie (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality and Importance Rating

I'm not a member of the Australia Wikiproject, but I'll call for the classification of the Valentich Disappearance as B quality and Mid-importance, based on the following two factors: 1) In quality, the information presented here is decent, but not to the degree of detail that is given at several websites. With some changes, it could be excellent, but those changes would have to be numerous, and bringing in much more detail to the matter' 2) In importance, the Valentich Disappearance is easily one of the most well-documented cases of interaction with the unexplained, and stands as a pillar to scientific study of its field being no laughing matter. I hope I don't greatly offend many with my audacity at "deciding" where it fits in, at least for now. --75.2.22.184 05:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree - Vufors 07:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The man

Is there any information on the man who dissapeared available? Was he suicidal? M2K E 23:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll research it. --Chr.K. 13:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, who was Frederick Valentich?

There's been an awful lot written about his disappearence, but, where is the article on Frederick Valentich? Moriori 07:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Given by what the words you have link to, his existence was apparently much less important than his disappearance. The prioritization involved is indeed impressive. --Chr.K. 07:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The man is only notable for the fact that he vanished. I don't think that he rates his own page - perfectblue 07:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This article has major NPOV problems

From reading it: 'The flight was routine, Valentich having previously completed the same flight several times' you get the impression that Valentich was an experienced pilot, he was not, having just 150 hours in flight (most not solo) and who had just got his instrument rating to fly at night only a few months before. This would be considered very inexperienced. The page seems to support 'unknown' disappearance much more heavily than joke suicide, even though the evidence (he didn't prearrange landing strip lighting or plane refueling etc, told people on take off he was picking up friends, but they weren't at the landing strip or anywhere near it) points towards him having no intention of landing at all. It also says absolutely nothing about personal problems he was having at the time and motiviation he had to suicide. His case is being glorified with a UFO 'paranormal' POV. I will found as many sources as I can so we can fix this non-sense.--155.144.251.120 04:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• You only need 7Hr to solo, and 30 Hrs for a full Private Pilots lic he had over 150Hr. Vufors 05:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • WTF - "personal problems" & "suicide"? Now this will be good Wiki folk. Love to see any independent evidence to show this. Oh... and so would the Victorian State Government Coroner. Now that would be majic data! Vufors 05:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I find no evidence of anything other than what Valentich did indeed claim he saw (and the fact that the object was picked up by independent witnesses nearby, well before any knowledge of the "green" color of the object was made known to the public)...I will come at this objectively: where do you get the "personal problems" concept? The site for such should be immediately made known for such a benchmark UFO case. --Chr.K. 07:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I am very curious how anyone has come to the conclusion that this is just a "joke suicide". (Weird terminology to begin with. How many suicides are a "joke"?) Does this allegation have any substance? If so, why was it not put forward as an explanation by the investigating government agency? Or is this just another case of "wiki-vandalism" using the NPOV arguement as a ruse? Wouldn't it be simpler to add the references to Valentich's alleged suicididal tendancies (assuming any exist), as a possible conventional explanation for the disappearance? The last paragraph in the "conventional explanations" should be rewrittten to remove nonsensical explanations (he was hit by lightning from a lenticular cloud). The paragraph should be shortened down to the last statement, which is a documented allegation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordheath (talk • contribs) 13:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Article name

On further thought, it should be Frederick Valentich disappearance, for the simple sake of first and last name being more encyclopedic. --Chr.K. 07:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Six months later, I'm going to act on this within three more days if no objections are raised. --Chr.K. 19:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"Official"

As none of the UFO stuff was from government sources or accredited bodies, it can't be listed as "official".

perfectblue 08:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, so - new header. Vufors 09:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Alert Distress phase

1. "the Alert was upgraded to the Distress Phase" is a funtion of SARs and the reader can see that on the image files.
2. Ufology is not a correct header for the other topics. They could be re-headed as "Other findings"?
3. The DOT tapes would have not been put under analysis if it was not for Norman & Auchettl investigation. Vufors 09:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sound as Proposed explanations as Unconventional

The sound recorded by the official DOT ATC is a part of the official Government report. The sound research does not try and explain the encounter. Nor is it Unconventional.The sound tape was also used to created the transcript, time the event, analysis pilots stress etc. Vufors 13:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

1) You have the Manifold photographs and the UFO sighting reports under Proposed explanations, but they aren't proposed explanations, just witness reports perfectblue 14:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Perfectblue97 - Well, it was you that stuck them into that cat?... I also believe that 'Manifold photographs' and the 'UFO sighting reports' are not "Proposed explanations"... thus we BOTH agree, so I have put them back in their own correct cat. Vufors 03:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

2)The section on the unexplained sounds doesn't include any information on the government findings, only the Ufologist findings so it should be kept together with the rest of the ufologist bits perfectblue 14:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Ufologist findings" well yes, this data came about due to the hard work of two researchers, without their work this case would have been stuck in a pile like the rest of the reports. However, they did not produce the "sound" "photo" or "accounts" its not a 'bits' item, this data does not try and explain the situ nor does it solve the account... this data is important field data related to the event. Vufors 03:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

3) Bold text should be used for highlighting not headings, headings should be created with wikimarkup. perfectblue 14:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thank for opinion.. I will stay with my understanding of Wiki. Regards ;) 03:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • PS: - Do you have a Wiki link about this "Bold text/Heading" condition? Thanks Vufors 03:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#Markup. It states that you should use double equals signs for headings, not bold text. perfectblue 14:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks Perfectblue97 - Regards Vufors 07:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Missing evidence

There are two very important pieces of evidence relating to this case - [1] the actual recording of Valentich's final communication (not just the transcript), and [2] the Manifold photographs. I am wondering why neither of these can be found anywhere in the public domain? I have been searching very hard and have not had any luck so far, does anyone have any suggestions? I have heard that the original copy of the recording got lost, but not sure if this is correct.Logicman1966 06:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• A few point that may help:Vufors 05:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

1. DOT has destroyed their copy.
2. The family got a copy, after legal action.
3. The family then gave a copy to Paul Norman & John Auchettl for analysis. So they have a copy.
4. Norman gave a copy to Dr. Richard F. Haines, so he has a copy.
5. When I last checked, the family would not release any more copies for private reasons, only to the above three researchers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vufors (talk • contribs) 05:11, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

About a decade ago I had a copy of the sound recording. As far as I recall I downloaded the file from the website of some Australian UFO research group/organization or possibly Australian aviation authorities. It was then freely available. Unfortunately I have since lost the file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryhearty (talk • contribs) 02:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Another Possible Explanation?

Could he have survived the flight, and changed his ID?--Someguyudontknow (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for original speculation. Format (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, some ten years ago I came across a comment in an internet forum to the effect that while on holiday somewhere South (I no longer remember the place) the person posting the comment had met a person who claimed to be Frederick Valentich. I saved the forum page but since lost it when a hard disk crashed some years ago (also see my comment in the preceding section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryhearty (talk • contribs) 02:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

npov tags

The way the article is written puts a lot of weight behind the UFO theories. The only sources that show a strong extraterrestrial lean are the ones from UFO researchers or websites. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Added details from an Associated Press report published a couple of days after the event occurred. Others are probably needed before the NPOV challenge can be removed 66.167.48.180 (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC).

manifold photographs

Are there any reliable sources for this? Ground Saucer Watch is not a reliable source. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Radar contact contradiction

The article both states that; '...before disappearing from radar..' and '...at no time was the aircraft plotted on radar...'. Neither the official accident report or the Richard Haines paper mentions Radar contact or a lack thereof, therefore it would appear strangely that the issue is both ambiguous and not deemed a significant issue to the official investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.155.74 (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Gravity-fed fuel

The article notes that the Cessna's fuel is gravity-fed from the wing. Yes, prolonged level inverted flight is impossible with that sort of system. However, it's very possible to pull one positive G while inverted - you're accelerating downwards at twice the rate of gravity. A barrel roll is a positive-G maneuver. 206.124.146.40 (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Weasel Words

There are some weasel words present in the article, for example "prosaic explanations". The word is superflous (being direcetly under the word "conventional". and I have removed it. Orkran Drow (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Lenticular Cloud Explanation

In the last 'conventional explanation', it says he might have been hit by lightning from a lenticular cloud. Lenticular clouds are not storm clouds; also, they form at high altitudes. That explanation just seems like someone was toying around with an 'original speculation'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.223.34 (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed the following line from the Conventional Explanations section: "...that he was struck by lightning from a lenticular cloud." The official report gives the area weather at that time as clear with light winds and only a smattering of stratus clouds. Lightning and lenticular clouds are therefore not an option. Pleonic (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality References

Added flag to title because of serious issues with quality of citations and references. I don't think it should be removed until someone comes up with more reliable references than UFO fanbooks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.155.224.7 (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Dr Haines's book is a very thorough analysis of the whole case. He develops four possible scenarios, only one of which involves a UFO. One of the articles cited is from Journal of Scientific Exploration, which is after all a peer reviewed journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryhearty (talk • contribs) 02:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Philip J Klass

Noticed that the reference for the Philip J Klass comment comes from a UFO magazine, rather than Klass himself. It's not reasonable to expect a UFO magazine to be fair to a UFO skeptic; the reference should have been from one of Klass's works.Tgiesler (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)