Talk:Pentagon UFO videos/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

2007 leak

The following content was removed for "repeating 3rd hand stories and original research" here:

The footage from Nimitz was originally posted to a UFO forum in February 2007, two years after the incident, posting commentary that lines up with the official story reported a decade later. This leak was mentioned in the official Department of Defense statement as an "unauthorized release".

The reference says:

And a copy of one of the much-touted videos has been online since at least 2007. UFO researcher Isaac Koi (a pseudonym under which he writes about the topic) established that the second video in the Times story, of an event in 2004, appeared online in 2007. Someone posted it on the conspiracy website Above Top Secret, and Koi delved into its origins. The first appearance he could find was on a website for a company called Vision Unlimited—a film production company. An archived 2007 version of vision-unlimited.de confirms that the footage was hosted there back then. That archival film matches the Times video.

What is the problem with this line LuckyLouie?  Nixinova   T   C   20:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Well, the Wired writer is apparently referring to an anonymous source who references a post by another anonymous source, hence it's a third-hand story appearing in a single source (Wired), which falls under WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Going into trivial detail about such minutia, unless multiple reliable sources are discussing it, is WP:UNDUE for this article. Also, you searching a WP:PRIMARY DOD document to find a detail that you feel is a confirmation of the story is WP:OR. In any event, I copyedited it to a summary "According to Wired magazine, a copy of one of the videos had been online in a UFO forum since at least 2007" and re-situated it to a more appropriate spot within the discussion of the video releases. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The lede already includes a reliably-sourced statement that the first of the videos were leaked to the public in 2007, and the reverted content does not add any notable details. Additionally, the referenced passage upon which the reverted content is based, which includes the phrases "a pseudonym," "someone posted it," and "conspiracy website," seems of questionable reliability. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

How can ufology be called pseudoscience?

The government has declared that many ufo sightings are real objects which defy the capabilities of any known aircraft. So if these are actual craft or natural phenomena then studying them is obviously science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.171.219.227 (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Studying unidentified flying objects is Science. Making preposterous and unsubstantiated claims as to their identities is not Science. The reason that Ufology is not Science is that it uses bogus identifications instead of relying on evidence. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Science does not care about what some government declares. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Pentagon UFO Videos

There is heavy bias in the wiki regarding fake "debunking" that occurred from a non-credible "Science writer". He intentionally ignores the source and credibility of the videos. Dozens of experienced military personnel with millions of dollars in training have reviewed the videos prior and post release. This includes post doctorate physicists, aeronautics engineers from NASA, real IR/FLIR experts, Military Intelligence, seasoned military fighter pilots and radar operators, and a fusion of highly advanced sensor data from multiple billion dollar systems. The IR Flare and Parallax hypotheses are completely unsubstantiated and are quite literally the opposite of unbiased analyses. SystemFailure0x5a (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure which science writer you are referring to, however as a new editor, you may want to familiarize yourself with our editorial policies, such as WP:RS, WP:SYNTHESIS, and particularly WP:FRINGE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with WP:FRINGE. I am referencing real science and real data, not fringe topics. None of my references are fringe topics and are well understood in aeronautics. All of my refrences are not original research and are backed up by experienced individuals in the field. The statements I am adding to the article are well known to these events and are desperately needed. In fact, the current state of the article is showing bias to their own fringe topics which clearly show false narratives with no scientific merit.

"the science writer Mick West stating that 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]"

In the quoted section above, Mick West is making wild claims that the Navy's AN/SPY-1 3D Radar System has mistaken balloons for highly advanced aeronautics craft, which is absolutely absurd. It is documented on credible military journals that these craft were identified by highly trained military observers in addition to the AN/SPY-1 system. The craft followed the strike group for weeks. A strike group on the other coast experienced the same issue and was literally stalked into the middle east.

SystemFailure0x5a (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

CBS (through their CNET brand) felt this was important enough and reliable enough to include, so it can be covered in the article. That you personally believe that this is 'absolutely absurd' is immaterial. - MrOllie (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The statements I am adding to the article are well known to these events and are desperately needed.

If this is the case, you can provide independent reliable sources which back up your claims. So far, you have not. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2021

change acting to former or to vice re: marco rubio 99.248.32.172 (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. He was in office at the time of his statement. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Original research in the article

Writing things like 'However, these explanations are unsubstantiated' or 'A quad-copter would easily be identified by the Navy's AN/SPY-1 system, so this hypothesis is likely without merit.' with zero sourcing is original research, and is plainly against policy on Wikipedia. I have reverted this (again). - MrOllie (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The claims are unsubstantiated

Many sources, including NBC news have stated and referenced military sources. If the objects were quad copters or balloons, these would not be classified as Unidentified. Furthermore, quad copters and balloons do not carry the classification of phenomena, due to the traditional flight characteristics of such technology.

Senator Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican who is the acting chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told a CBS affiliate in Miami this month that he was primarily concerned about reports of unidentified aircraft over American military bases — and that it was in the government’s interest to find out who was responsible. He expressed concerns that China or Russia or some other adversary had made “some technological leap” that “allows them to conduct this sort of activity.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by SystemFailure0x5a (talk • contribs) 13:36, February 27, 2021 (UTC)

To assert that a balloon or quad copter has conducted incursions in restricted military space many miles over the pacific and Atlantic oceans is the absolute 100% definition of pseudoscience and fringe conjecture. There is literally an empty void that contains absolutely no feasible explanation for how a quad copter or balloon can stalk military exercises for weeks on end with impunity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SystemFailure0x5a (talk • contribs) 18:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

References

The quadcopter mention is in reference to the updated reporting guidelines. Those are not specific to these videos, and include all manner of scenarios near populated areas. I'm not sure what mechanism would cause birds and drifting weather balloons to avoid 'restricted military space,' so I'm sure the occasional 'incursion' is in fact 'conducted'. Also, no one is suggesting that the same bird was stalking exercises for weeks - it is certainly possible that different birds were sighted on different occasions. - MrOllie (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

CEC & AN/SPY-1 Capabilities

The following makes the claims of a balloon or quad copter unsubstantiated. We need to add information regarding the technology used to capture the UAP/AAVs in the videos. Please review this credible citation which will help clear up how it's implausible for the military to mistake a quad copter or balloon for advanced aircraft conducting incursions into our restricted military space. It is not feasible to suggest that these capabilities are simply confusing a balloon with the Parallax effect, because the CEC system watches the targets through multiple billion dollar systems in separate locations, which can triangulate and identify the target. They also combined visual contact and sensor data to rule out birds or balloons. It was partially identified as an AAV, not as natural phenomena.

At its very basic level, it [CEC] uses the Strike Group's diverse and powerful surveillance sensors, including the SPY-1 radars on Aegis Combat System-equipped cruisers and destroyers, as well as the E-2 Hawkeye's radar picture from on high, and fuses that information into a common 'picture' via data-links and advanced computer processing. This, in turn, provides very high fidelity 'tracks' of targets thanks to telemetry from various sensors operating at different bands and looking at the same target from different aspects and at different ranges.

Whereas a stealthy aircraft or one employing electronic warfare may start to disappear on a cruiser's radar as it is viewing the aircraft from the surface of the Earth and from one angle, it may still be very solid on the E-2 Hawkeye's radar that is orbiting at 25,000 feet and a hundred miles away from the cruiser. With CEC, the target will remain steady on both platform's CEC enabled screens as they are seeing fused data from both sources and likely many others as well.

We are talking about a quantum leap in capability and fidelity here folks.

The data-link connectivity and the quality of the enhanced telemetry means that weapons platforms, such as ships and aircraft, could also fire on targets without needing to use their own sensor data. For instance, a cruiser could fire a missile at a low-flying aircraft that is being tracked by a Hawkeye and an F/A-18 even though it doesn't show up on their own scopes.

This capability continues to evolve and mature today and will be the linchpin of any peer-state naval battle of the future that the U.S. is involved with. But back in 2004, it was new and untested on the scale presented by the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group as it churned through the warning areas off the Baja Coast.

The key takeaway here is that if ever there was an opportune time to capture the very best real-world sensor data on a high-performance target in near lab-like controlled settings offered by the restricted airspace off the Baja Coast, this was it. And by intention or chance, this is exactly what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SystemFailure0x5a (talk • contribs) 14:12, February 27, 2021 (UTC)

References

Do you not understand WP:SYNTH? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

1. SystemFailure0x5a Please remember to sign your posts with four ~ signs
2. The citation you provided does not back up your claim. You need something that directly says "these could not be X because Y." Otherwise this is entirely original research on your part.
3. Massive walls of text like this are not going to convince people you're right. Rather, they're going to just ignore you. Please be succinct, suggest direct changes to article wording, and provide sources which specifically back up your claims. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

"The citation you provided does not back up your claim. You need something that directly says "these could not be X because Y." Otherwise this is entirely original research on your part."

First, thank you for working with me through this. I do appreciate it very much. So regarding this, how has it been concluded that birds or balloons are a valid claim? The reference provides no credible source as to how that claim is valid. It's like I'm trying to fight a baseless claim that has no credible backing with refrences to technology that contradict their claims. I see a quote from a retired game programmer that has no experience with advanced military systems. All the data strongly implies the opposite. My biggest gripe with this part of the "possible explanations" is that the claims are not plausible and do not cite credible explanations, which appear to make it unsubstantiated.

SystemFailure0x5a (talk)

Because you're coming at this from entirely the wrong direction. The conclusions are just that, conclusions. You can't argue against them yourself, based on your knowledge. You would need reliable, independent sources which directly say "those claims are wrong and here's why." You can't use All the data strongly implies the opposite on Wikipedia, because that's your personal conclusion, and Wikipedia does not let us just post our opinions. We need sources that other people can read & verify on their own. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment on junk science references

Thanks to those who are keeping crank claims out of this article. It still somewhat overstates the idea that these observations positively identified fast-moving objects (as many of the cited sources indicate, some of the most simple + concise terrestrial explanations are sensor-mediated confusion that led to a mistaken inference of fast motion).

A few notes about specific misleading claims made in some edits, which should be kept out

• Uncited negative statements. ('no IR flare was found')
• Overstated context/confirmation from military sources ('confirmed by', 'skilled personnel + aerospace engineers', &c) -- most military personnel, most physicists, and most aerospace engineers do not consider these incidents evidence of advanced aerospace vehicles.
• Magical concepts in crank physics. ('high frequency gravitational waves', 'inertial mass reduction', 'metric engineering'). Also misuse of real physics terms. ('metamaterials', 'waveguides')

– SJ + 20:58, 24 March 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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Do you have any sources which directly contradict him? jps (talk) 12:38, 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)

I think the article should include some information about his claims even if just for historical purposes. However, it looks like the extent and form of coverage in the article isn't fully WP:DUE and WP:NPOV compliant (not as clearly incompliant as the overall state of the article). For instance, his comments are portrayed as kind of the public, scientific, expert and popular consensuses and/or the best current conclusions about the respective data. They need to be balanced with other conclusions and with statements from people directly addressing (refuting) his claims or the general type of claims that he made/makes. Furthermore, "science writer" should be replaced with "skeptical investigator" because he is more involved in that and it's how he is involved here. --Prototyperspective (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Certainly he is foremost known as a Skeptic (or a professional skeptic?), not a science writer. That should be changed right off. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any sources which indicate that? jps (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, just have a look at his Wikipedia page - "Mick West is a British-American science writer, skeptical investigator, and retired video game programmer. He is the creator of the websites Contrail Science and Metabunk, and he investigates and debunks pseudoscientific claims and conspiracy theories such as chemtrails and UFOs. His first book is Escaping the Rabbit Hole: How to Debunk Conspiracy Theories Using Facts, Logic, and Respect." Also "Known for:Debunking chemtrails and other conspiracy theories"

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Please try again. jps (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure - "How Mick West Went From Making Tony Hawk's Pro Skater to Debunking Conspiracy Theories: This is the story of Mick West: co-founder of Neversoft, and one of the most well-respected conspiracy theory debunkers around." Blake Hester,"How Mick West Went From Making Tony Hawk's Pro Skater to Debunking Conspiracy Theories" usgamer 17 March 2020 https://www.usgamer.net/articles/mick-west-from-tony-hawks-pro-skater-to-debunking-conspiracies" Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Am I to understand that you think that this source shows the Mick West "is foremost known as a Skeptic (or a professional skeptic?), not a science writer"? If so, I am at a loss here. You clearly don't have a handle on basic sourcing. jps (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you basically going to challenge every single sentence I write?Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear from what you are writing on other people's user talkpages that you are here to right great wrongs and explain to us "fanatics on it who I think aren't prepared to shift" how you think the US government confirms your credulity. Many of your sentences are constructed, albeit inartfully, to prop up this contention. Do those sentences deserve serious consideration for editorial decisions? I am of the opinion that they do not. jps (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Mate, you've shown yourself to be consistently uncivil to me, despite two warnings. I'm here to add content to articles, I'm not interested in your constant attacks on every sentence I write, and your amateur detective work. Whatever.Thanks for making wikipedia a misery.Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, because calling us a bunch of fanatics was such a stellar display of civility... It's been my experience that those who whine the most about civility are those who are least able to sway others with rational discourse. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The report does not somehow invalidate every other source that has been written to date, and even if it did the report does not conclude that 'this is un-IDed foreign tech'. I'm not sure how anyone who has read it could come away with that impression, given the text devoted to subjects such as observational error, Airborne clutter, natural phenomena, etc. - MrOllie (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The ODNI report specifically names as one possible explanation airborne clutter, which could be things like a balloon seen against the ocean from a moving aircraft. There’s no reason to remove mention of it from our article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

This is precisely my point, though. A random science writer watching a grainy video was a really important part of the article when he was all we had, but we have genuine experts RSes now. Whenever possible, we should attribute to them. Feoffer (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

What makes an expert "genuine" in these contexts? jps (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

You understand the difference between Mick West and ODNI. Feoffer (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Not really? I mean, I'm fine with your up-to-dating the situation, but I'm not sure why he's deprecated still. jps (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I've added West's up-to-date stance post-ODNI report, which is the best of both worlds to my eyes. Feoffer (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Mick West is a noted skeptic whose views are cogent to this subject, who addresses the topic directly in the cited works and whose writings on this have never faced any pushback from any respectable source. There's literally no reason for exclusion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

As proposer, I think this section heading is moot now that we have West's updated comments, there's no reason to exclude them. Feoffer (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Why are we giving outsize weight to government reports, when they themselves have flip-flopped all over the place in the past 7 decades+? Are we being too trusting of government sources? I would advocate a pinch of salt when considering government reports, as with all other reports, a healthy level of skepticism.Chantern15 (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

2019 VideosChantern15 (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

The paragraph should probably finish with a mention for how the object appeared to flicker on their screens before it eased into the water.

I guess that could be significant, but not sure of what.I guess, if there is RS commentary discussing it, it would interesting detail to include. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll create a new post there.Chantern15 (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

Hmmmm...I can't find RS Commenting.Chantern15 (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

Ok, let us know if you find it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

You got it!Chantern15 (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

I don't know why the links meant for the post above migrated here.Chantern15 (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

You can nail them down using the reflist-talk template. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate that!Chantern15 (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

Study Suggests That The Calculated Energy Output Of The UFO Is Congruent With Really Fast Interstellar Travel

Study here suggests that the calculated energy output of the UFO would be congruent with really fast interstellar travel.

It had something like 396 million times the kinetic energy of the HAL Tejas (taken from the orders of magnitude energy page of wikipedia, self-calculation).

Chantern15 (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

References

More evidence that MDPI really will publish anything. This paper was discussed above in the section titled 'New Credible Information' - MrOllie (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there a way to prevent a sonic boom while travelling through air in established physics? Perhaps by superheating the air around the craft?Chantern15 (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

Don't peer-reviewed studies carry some weight?Chantern15 (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

Not when they're 'reviewed' by MDPI. Sonic boom can be reduced (but not eliminated) in various ways, notably by putting a long spike on the front of the aircraft. It wouldn't look anything like these videos, though. - MrOllie (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Chantern15 Its published by the journal "Entropy", which is an academic journal with peer review. At face value, its seems to be a normal acadmic journal, and the authors appear to be legit academics. MDPI seems to have come in for some criticism, it was on Bealls list of predatory publishers, but then taken off. However it was investigated by the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) who found no issue with them. If you wanted the article assessed specifically, you could put it to the RS noticeboard, to see what they say - would be interested to hear their opinion.... but I think it may be a case of "where's there's smoke there's fire".Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Where's the RS noticeboard?Chantern15 (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

No worries, found it!Chantern15 (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

Are there credible studies in credible journals which do establish a link between observed acceleration and congruence with fast interstellar travel?Chantern15 (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

Another theory which I heard was that that these are plasma spheres created in the atmosphere and move with the geomagnetic field of the Earth. Would plasma spheres breaking the speed of sound create a sonic boom?

Do you mean naturally occurring plasma spheres? Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

That too!Chantern15 (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

According to the RS, they were observed to be moving in such a way that they were piloted intelligently (so moving against the wind) rather than randomly like a natural phenomenon. So it wouldn't seem so. I don't know much about plasma spheres, to be honest.

Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Plasma Spheres could move against the wind, since they are electromagnetic phenomena. All that has to be teased out is whether the magnetic field of the Earth near where the tic-tacs were found move in the same direction as the winds or in the opposite direction, if they move in the opposite direction to the winds, it would weigh in heavily on the side of the natural explanation.Chantern15 (talk) 06:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

I can't currently find the exact article which spoke in depth about naturally occurring plasma spheres following Earth's Geomagnetic fields. In this case the plasma spheres weren't ball lightning, they were caused by some other mechanism, which is why they are far up in the air. Honestly, I don't know if ball lightning can exist at high altitudes. I know that there is poorly understood lightning at extremely high altitudes which flash upwards towards space.Chantern15 (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

Quick read of the forbes article, its interesting, but it looks like the "plasma UFOs" seems like pretty rough tech that may fool the sensor on heat seeking missiles, but the UAP sightings in this article were corroborated by various sensory devices, and the pilots. Seems like early tech that may amount to something in the future, unless the Russian have made undiscovered huge developments with it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, if they did, they wouldn't be letting others know in a hurry would they? Russia does tend to focus its tech on defence instead of offence.Chantern15 (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

I dunno - if they have this high tech, it makes sense for them to use it on the US in order to gain something, to test the technology, or to test US capabilities. At the same time, some of the commentary seems to put doubt that China and Russia could have this amazing tech developed to this level, and that they have got it to this level without the world's intelligence services knowing about it.Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and wouldn't they require a platform to fire those lasers? And that doesn't explain the RADAR readings, maybe they were naturally occurring plasma UFOs, essentially bits of discharged lightning caught by the Earth's magnetic field and travelling along them. But of course, that would beg the question, would Plasma UFOs not have a sonic boom when they break the sound barrier?Chantern15 (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

It doesn't make sense to antagonize your foes for no need. It's not like America buzzes the Russian Federation with F-35s. It's not the Cold War any longer.Chantern15 (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

Yeah good point. If they are plasma UFOs created by Russia or China, they are going to need a platform nearby to create them, and there wasn't one. May be the Russians or Chinese are counting on their tech being so advanced, it won't be linked to them? Russian or Chinese tech seems to be the only logical explanation, given the current evidence we have, not withstanding *Captain Nemo-esque* private technology (which would be *extremely* unlikely) or a non terrestrial source. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps there was a submarine which interfered with the IR of the F-18s and it escaped confirmation by submarines because its magnetohydrodynamic thrusters could not be picked up by SONAR, so it was essentially a stealth submarine. Rtd. Commander David Fravor did say that he saw roiling water underneath the "tic-tac". I can only see Russia being capable of this, but PRC is so secretive, that they could have this tech. This only leaves the question of the RADAR lockons, those would be impervious to IR interference. Temperature inversions could be one explanation. But it doesn't explain two iterations of them, especially at the fighters' CAP point. That would be a highly unlikely occurrence. Maybe it was the mixture of Russian/Chinese probing and strange weather occurring at the same time? But what explains a fleet of UAPs all at once? Maybe there was a camouflaged drone which the submarine released, like the WW1 camo for ships which was very disorienting, and that targetted multiple fighter IR systems. But then multiple tiny temperature inversions? Hardly. Their low temperature could be explained by them being cold plasma (like how the outer surface of bulb is warm or just a quick, nasty shock of pain, it doesn't melt your hand, the 6000K+ filament). This seems like too much overcomplication, and it doesn't explain past behaviour by Russia or CHina, the noiselessness of the objects even at blistering speeds and unnecessarily provoking a powerful adversary into an escalation. Although they could've known that in wargames planes are armed with duds. Although this could be easily addressed with rearming or reinforcement. Nor does it explain tracks at 80,000 ft where temperature inversions don't happen, or for example NORAD tracks of objects from Space achieving reentry to 80,000 ft in the 1970s. Or any of the past encounters which happened before such tech existed. It could be that extremely high altitude lightning dancing across Earth's magnetic field or being attracted to metallic objects due to polarization, but it doesn't explain nuclear weapons shutting down

at Malmstrom, or erratic movements which would belie the relatively smooth movement we would see if they rode on the Earth's magnetic field, or rapid depolarization and repolarization which would make them bounce back and forth between metallic objects and the magnetic field? Seems unlikely, since some eyewitness accounts such as those on KC-135 stratotankers operating near the north pole, describe them as entering the aurora borealis, stopping on a dime and shooting back up into space. I think that by judging by all the data and evidence we have, I think only a non-terrestrial or perhaps a trans-terrestrial explanation will suffice. A natural phenomenon that we've never properly studied before. But I don't think any known or even unknown natural phenomenon could explain hovering over Malmstrom Airforce Base and shutting down nuclear weapons all at once in a silo, or another silo not faraway, and then harassing them for decades. This makes me want to come to a non-terrestrial, artificial explanation. What that maybe, I won't speculate here.Chantern15 (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern

References

Well the ODNI report pretty much well said "we don't know what they are" - *but* they are taking it seriously enough that they see it as a safety issue that Navy jets may collide into them, as they are operating in US air space, with impunity...near carriers! So from this, we can take (1) the US think they are an actual physical vessel, and not some sensory malfunction/physical visual anomaly and (2) they don't seem to be *obviously* pointing the finger at Russia or China. From the commentary I have read, I'm not really seeing anyone saying its natural phenomena, which has been a traditional explanation for decades: the evidence now, including pilot testimony, seems to disregard this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Chantern15 as per AndyTheGrump we probably shouldn't be clogging up the talk page with our discussion (as interesting as it it). Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Affirmative.Chantern15 (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15