Jump to content

Talk:Disappearance of Frederick Valentich/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Various old comments

Creepy! 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)


  • what if it was just something tied to his aircraft that was first underwater and when the aircraft flew in the air, it was dragged out of the water(where people saw it going out of the water) and acted like a kite in the sky above him(when he said that there was something hovering above him), and causing the aircraft to not be balanced and engine to be loud as it is overworking(so the engines might have failed and the aircraft to fall somewhere?

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)

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)

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)


"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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

  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)

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)

The Wikisource link that's used as a reference for the entire "Details" section links to a deleted page. 167.24.24.150 (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing NPOV tag

There was an NPOV tag added to the Proposed explanations section, but no discussion on this page ever occurred to explain what is NPOV about it. Not sure why it was added, and given the changes that have been made to this article over the many months since it was added, no way to know whether the issue has been addressed. In any case, I'm going to remove it, but feel free to object here if you think it should remain.JoelWhy (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2012 (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)

Journal of Scientific Exploration is a fringe science journal with articles reviewed by fellow fringe scientists. JoelWhy (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I have literally hundreds of pages on this subject obtained via FOI from various Government sources. Is this the appropriate place to put them? Looking through the internet the information I have does not appear online anywhere else. Cheers Eq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equinox1 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hundreds of pages on this particular incident? Or, on UFO research in general?JoelWhy (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I went through a Valentich stage about 10 years ago. I spent over $1000 on obtaining documents on this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equinox1 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I take it you didn't find any photos of little gray men in there, lol. In any case, I'm not sure what you can do with them. In general, we don't use primary sources for references, per WP:PSTS. If there's something particularly interesting, maybe we could use it as a photo or something? Not sure...but, next time you're looking to blow $100, send it to help pay my cable bill. ;)JoelWhy (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Joel, I understand the primary reference thing - however this contains radar with blanks, and all the original stuff (with blanks, not the audio tape), search details, flight plan and many, many newspaper clippings. The primary findings and intermediary reports, quite a bit of info. It seems a shame to have it rot in my cupboard with no other apparent copy on the net. Agree though, I couldn't find any Gray men - though others might? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equinox1 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe if you put it on on a page, we could include an external link here to it. Normally, that probably wouldn't meet Wiki standards, but given that you would be providing sources that may be unavailable to all but the most diligent researchers, I think it would make sense to include it here.JoelWhy (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll start putting it together. Equinox (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2012 (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)

Not sure, these sites show one of them- http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread409461/pg7 http://www.news.com.au/pictures/gallery-e6frflv9-1111119953481?page=7

--Equinox (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

abovetopsecret is definitely not a reliable source (the site is basically a hodgepodge of conspiracy nuttery and pseudosientific garbage). The other source might do, not sure.JoelWhy (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Official Reports

A researcher in Australia has managed to locate the official reports.

Details of what he found can be read at his blog in entries from June 28, July 3rd & August 24 2012, to which I've linked to below. More than worth incorporating.

1. 28 June 2012: Valentich files released by Australian Government

2. 3 July 2012: Second Valentich disappearance file digitised

3. 24 August 2012: Valentich - the rest of the file is available

I don't have the time to do this myself. So feel free. Graham1973 (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The first one is interesting as many explanations of the incident are dependant on Valentich's own state of mind. The interviews with those close to him may provide some insight rather than simply speculating 'he was a UFO nut', 'he was suicidal', etc.
The documents linked in the third post also confirm the destruction of the original recording of the conversation between Valentich and Melbourne Flight Services
If anyone takes it upon themselves to read these, they should keep in mind a local news article which states:

What is significant about the file, Mr Basterfield argues, is that for the first time it is revealed that parts of aircraft wreckage with partial serial numbers were found in Bass Strait five years after the disappearance. Mr Basterfield says Valentich's aircraft serial numbers fell within the range of those found on the wreckage, almost eliminating the theory that the pilot staged his disappearance on the way to King Island.

Basterfield makes no refernce to this evidence in his blog posts however, so it seems as though he was misquoted or reinterpreted the evidence. Moogsi (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean that we give equal credibility to batshit-crazy claims by UFOlogists

Read WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promulgation of credulous bollocks about UFOs, and attempts to present such material as an 'alternative explanation' for the disappearance of Valentich is against policy. I suggest that those who think otherwise find somewhere else to post their nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Good luck trying to convince some people. Sometimes I'd love to force-feed them the General and Special theories of Relativity.  :-)

Removing Flag for Citations

I think its about time we removed the citation flag. It was left here Oct 2011 and 31 citations are plenty. I do have some concerns with some of this page. Citation 4 seems to be used quite a lot and this sentence "No skeptical explanation has been given to account for the object's speed.[4]" is probably outdated as the citation is from 1996. I don't have time at the moment to go through this entire article, but think maybe considering so much time has passed that the page needs a new eye looking at it.Sgerbic (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My eye is evaluating it. There was much WP:UNDUE weight given poorly-sourced WP:FRINGE views. We're not required to give equal validity to fringe minority views sourced to groups like "VUFORS". I've made some preliminary edits. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Vufors, we're all agreed that coverage in reliable sources has mentioned the word "UFO" in connection with the topic, so no problem there. The problem is that we can't use fringe sources to put WP:UNDUE weight on the UFOlogists point of view. UFOlogy or fringe sources (such as Ground Saucer Watch, MUFON, VUFORS, Journal of Scientific Exploration, etc) are not WP:RS and indeed fall under WP:FRINGE. There's also a problem with WP:OR here that I see, citing WP:PRIMARY sources (government records, etc) to make an argument in favor of a UFOlogy point of view, as well as comments made by the victim's father being cherry-picked to highlight the UFO angle. And to answer your question, my comment "my eye is evaluating it" was a response to Sgerbic's comment that "the page needs a new eye looking at it". It was my way of saying "ok, I'll take a look". - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

News archives

Could be some decent sources here: [1] - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent Changes and Transcript section

I've gone through and deleted any WP:SYNTH that was being propped up on the back of primary documents and previously tagged for WP:OR. I also deleted one statement that had a citation required tag since 2012. In one case a primary source document was being dramatically misrepresented, and I rewrote the text to make it more in line with what was actually reported in that document. Do I think this article is perfect? Far from it. But I think these changes will help.

However a note, what's with the copyright notice in the Transcript section. I was tempted to just blank the section but I saw the note saying to go to talk before touching it and I don't see anything in talk about it. Simonm223 (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Having seen what is there I actually do have some serious concerns regarding copyright of that section I'll shorten it to an external link. Simonm223 (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR

Huge sections of the article are cited to primary sources (Department of Transport, National Archives of Australia, etc.) They read as if someone sifted through various reports and picked out stuff that supports the UFO mystery angle. As Simonm223 has found that at least one primary source document was being dramatically misrepresented, I think it's prudent to WP:BLOWITUP and remove everything cited to these primary sources and rebuild a short summary from reliable secondary sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I would concur - it would be better to remove these primary sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I found that the Associated Press source was also being dramatically misrepresented, so I copyedited the lead appropriately [2]. Given the effort someone put in to slant this article to the UFOlogy point of view, it will need going over with a fine tooth comb. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disappearance_of_Frederick_Valentich/Archive_1&oldid=1136664286"