Talk:List of reported UFO sightings/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Analysis of Existing UFO Wiki Articles

I've tried to find any existing Wiki articles on UFOs that are not already linked from this page. I'm going to list them below and note what appears to be the best source from each article. I thought this may be a good step towards establishing standards for what goes into this list and also avoiding potential edit warring. Feel free to comment on any these.Rjjiii (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Kirtland AFB UFO sighting

Reliable source: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5cf80ff422b5a90001351e31/t/5d092d4990f93c000119785c/1560882508023/scienceindefault.pdf

Proposed description:

Discussion: Added.Rjjiii (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Felix Moncla

Reliable source: https://web.archive.org/web/20090903051657/http://www.northernexpress.com/editorial/features.asp?id=2105 (Not very?)

Proposed description:

Discussion: This may be notable. He did disappear and there's a public memorial in a cemetery down here saying that he vanished fighting a UFO. The only source in the article about the UFO specifically says that it is not reliable or verified.Rjjiii (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The Mothman Prophecies

Reliable source: https://skepticalinquirer.org/2002/05/gray-barkers-book-of-bunk/

Proposed description:

Discussion: Culturally significant and notable, but I'm not sure that it belongs in this list.Rjjiii (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Travis Walton UFO incident

Reliable source: https://www.wmicentral.com/news/arizona_news/40-years-later-most-documented-ufo-sighting-abduction-still-draw-interest/article_f10689c2-8982-11e5-82e2-d3306821f49b.html

Proposed description:

Discussion: This guy won some kind of prize for disappearing and reliable sources have publicly doubted his motives and story. He's notable but writing a one-line description for him has to walk the line between not endorsing his story and also not calling him a fraud.Rjjiii (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

1976 Tehran UFO incident

Reliable source: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-pentagon-started-taking-ufos-seriously

Proposed description: I like the article's lead: "The 1976 Tehran UFO Incident was a radar and visual sighting of an unidentified flying object (UFO) over Tehran, the capital of Iran, during the early morning hours of 19 September 1976. During the incident, two Imperial Iranian Air Force F-4 Phantom II jet interceptors reported losing instrumentation and communications as they approached the object."

Discussion: This looks good. It used to be in the article but the old description didn't match reliable sources.Rjjiii (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Petrozavodsk phenomenon

Reliable source:

Proposed description:

Discussion: I can't evaluate the soviet sources.Rjjiii (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Emilcin Abduction

Reliable source:

Proposed description:

Discussion: The sources are in Polish. If they look good, this seems appropriate.Rjjiii (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Added to article.Rjjiii (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Disappearance of Frederick Valentich

Reliable source:

Proposed description:

Discussion: In the article's only available, reliable source for the ufo, Nickell (2013) says that lights have been identified. There may be another source out there but I don't see it on here.Rjjiii (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Kaikoura lights

Reliable source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-12-22/nz-military-releases-ufo-files/2383152

Proposed description:

Discussion:

Val Johnson incident

Reliable source: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=xUIrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=h54FAAAAIBAJ&pg=6131,5359041&dq=val-johnson+ufo&hl=en

Proposed description:

Discussion:

Robert Taylor incident

Reliable source:

Proposed description:

Discussion: Why do people spend so much time writing nice articles and not bother with their sources? Every one of the sources here seems bizarre.Rjjiii (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Rendlesham Forest incident

Reliable source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/ufo/10132449/UFO-files-Rendlesham-Forest-incident-remains-Britains-most-tantalising-sighting.html

Proposed description: Clipping from the lead: A series of reported sightings of unexplained lights near Rendlesham Forest in Suffolk, England in late December 1980 became linked with claims of UFO landings. The events occurred just outside RAF Woodbridge, which was used at the time by the United States Air Force (USAF). The occurrence is the most famous of claimed UFO events to have happened in the United Kingdom, and has been compared to the Roswell UFO incident in the United States. It is sometimes referred to as "Britain's Roswell".

Discussion: Very notable.Rjjiii (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Cash–Landrum incident

Reliable source: https://skepticalinquirer.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2014/03/p28.pdf

Proposed description:

Discussion:

Trans-en-Provence case

Reliable source: https://books.google.com/books?id=Ts8DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA64#v=onepage&q&f=false

Proposed description:

Discussion:

Communion (book)

Reliable source:

Proposed description:

Discussion: Notable and culturally significant but I don't see a reliable source for a UFO sighting in the article.Rjjiii (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Japan Air Lines Cargo Flight 1628 incident

Reliable source: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=KpRdAAAAIBAJ&pg=4907,5565770&hl=en

Proposed description:

Discussion:

Gulf Breeze UFO incident

Reliable source: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/98969864/pensacola-news-journal-june-10-1990/

Proposed description:

Discussion: Proven hoax. I don't think it's significant either.Rjjiii (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Ilkley Moor UFO incident

Reliable source: https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/8073980.alien-evidence-re-investigated/

Proposed description:

Discussion:

Voronezh UFO incident

Reliable source: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1917&dat=19891011&id=-xQxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=y-AFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1042,2604606

Proposed description:

Discussion:

Belgian UFO wave

Reliable source:

Proposed description:

Discussion:

Varginha UFO incident

Reliable source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB835915673862027500

Proposed description:

Discussion:

Falcon Lake Incident

Reliable source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/falcon-lake-incident-book-anniversary-1.4121639

Proposed description:

Discussion: This appears to have cultural significance to the region to the extent that it was depicted on currency ( https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/04/03/royal-canadian-mint-releases-coin-depicting-manitoba-mans-ufo-encounter.html ).Rjjiii (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Jafr alien invasion

Reliable source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8604122.stm

Proposed description:

Discussion: Established hoax. I don't see a reason to include this one.Rjjiii (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Visoki Dečani

Reliable source: Possibly none.

Proposed description:

Discussion: There is some wild art at this monastery. Ufologists see ufos in some of it. It seems all art experts regard the objects in the frescoes as symbolic representations of known heavenly bodies like the moon.Rjjiii (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Removed Dyatlov Pass incident

Per the edit summary, I have removed the Dyatlov Pass incident. Neither the source nor the article described a UFO sighting/report/encounter. The previous description, Mysterious deaths of experienced cross-country skiers in the Urals are due to official investigation believed to have been caused by an unknown "compelling natural force". Some claim relation to unidentified orange spheres. seems to reference a now-deleted portion of the incident article. Still available in this old version ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dyatlov_Pass_incident&oldid=443511671 ) it reads, Guschin summarized his studies in the book "The price of state secrets is nine lives" ("Цена гостайны - девять жизней"). Some researchers criticized it due to its concentration on the speculative theory of a "Soviet secret weapon experiment", but the publication aroused the public discussion, stimulated by interest in the paranormal. Indeed, many of those who remained silent for 30 years reported new facts about that accident. One of them was the former police officer Lev Ivanov (Лев Иванов), who led the official inquest in 1959. In 1990 he published an article along with his admission that the investigation team had no rational explanation of the accident. He also reported that he received direct orders from high-ranking regional officials to dismiss the inquest and keep its materials secret after reporting that the team had seen "flying spheres". Ivanov personally believes in a paranormal explanation - specifically, UFOs. Rjjiii (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

2023 Alaska and Canada Shootdowns

Might these be worthy of inclusion on the list? The objects shot down by US Air Force fighters over Canada and Alaska do not resemble any known type of aircraft, and are similar in appearance to the "UAPs" reported by Navy pilots several years previously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.166.188 (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I find it quite funny that the term "UFO" is being studiously avoided in our recent articles about "high altitude objects". [1] FYI @User:JoJo Anthrax- LuckyLouie (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I suspect the reason is that the February 2023 shootdowns are events that we know for certain to have happened, while the majority of other events in this article are for all intents and purposes apocryphal. Using the world UFO to describe them, while technically correct, might suggest that their reality is disputed. 68.71.166.188 (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a contributing factor is that certain "whistleblowers", "think tanks", and "research groups" have been, for some reason, oddly silent. If only the identification of objects had been included in their business models. In the meantime, if any RS actually describe the downed objects as "UFOs," I suppose they can be included here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Personally yes, as they are objects that are unidentified and were flying. But I suspect we will need RS to say it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I've added an entry for these recent events, using sources that actually use the descriptor "UFO." If these reports do not qualify, I will certainly not edit-war for their retention. I note that I do not have access to a New York Times article that might be appropriate, and although I included it here, I am uncertain if Newsweek should be considered a reliable source for this topic. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

It's definitely a term being used in media coverage [2]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Narrow columns on mobile and somewhat Vector 2022

This article (like many sortable lists) creates narrow columns on mobile and to a lesser extent on the new Vector 2022 skin. On mobile, all tables scroll horizontally. While editors are attending here, I wanted to toss some ideas out for potentially better formatting:

1. Remove sources column and move the sources into the description.
2. Combine "City, State" and "Country". Country could come first for sortability or even a scheme that uses continent codes.
3. Split long words with soft hyphens.

An example entry using all 3:

Date	Name	Location	Description
1976-09-17	1976 Tehran UFO incident	Iran: Tehran, Tehran province	The 1976 Tehran UFO Inci­dent was a radar and visual sight­ing of a UFO over the cap­ital of Iran, during early morn­ing hours. Two Imperial Iranian Air Force F-4 Phantom II jet in­ter­cept­ors re­port­ed los­ing in­strumen­ta­tion and communica­tions as they ap­proached the ob­ject.

There are still a lot of entries to comb through, so I'm not rushing to change formatting, but rather looking for feedback and hopefully better ideas. Rjjiii (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Feoffer (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Date format

@Timeshifter: This edit splits the dates in a way that makes them nearly unreadable: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_reported_UFO_sightings&diff=prev&oldid=1140699385 Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess opinions differ. I was just thanked for that edit by another editor:

04:16, 21 February 2023 Feoffer thanked Timeshifter.

On the other hand I prefer:

2004 Mar 5

2004 Nov 14

They wrap too.

I used the above and further cleaned up the formatting. Table now narrows better. See: this version of the table.

--Timeshifter (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I will try to phrase this so that it sounds more like a bug report or feedback, than me just cupping my hands and shouting, "boo."

My main issue with the original edit is that it dropped text like 03-05 onto its own line for most readers. I don't believe that is clear. XX-XX can be interpreted as YY-MM, MM-YY, MM-DD, or DD-MM and is discouraged by MOS:BADDATE

If you are spelling or abbreviating the month, I am fine with wrapping as it will not cause the issue above. However, the current date format you've used is also discouraged by MOS:BADDATE, which gives "2007 Apr 15" as an example of unacceptable format. It recommends several other format including the previous YYYY-MM-DD, 3 July 2001, and July 3, 2001. I think there are several ways to sort year-at-the-end formats by date instead of numerical sorting.Rjjiii (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

MoS is sometimes dumb. See: Year-month-day format. MOS:BADDATE allows 2001-09-02 but not its exact-order equivalent 2001 Sep 2. Which is actually much clearer since the month and day can not be confused. And it is much better in charts to see the year first.

But I returned the old numerical format and just added this in front of it:

{{Date table sorting|abbr=on|nowrap=off|format=dmy|2004-03-05}}

This makes it easy to do the same for most of the other table sections.

Unfortunately, {{Date table sorting}} like MOS:BADDATE does not allow format=ymd

There should be an exception for tables.

--Timeshifter (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

MOS:DATE allows the numerical year-month-date format. After further thought I think it is best for this international list. As long as it can wrap. It is common for dating files and folders in PCs worldwide since it allows easy ordering and sorting by date. Readers from all over the world understand the ISO date format. As long as the column header is clear about the order. And Mediawiki sorts the numerical ISO dates correctly without adding data-sort-type or the template. See:

• Help:Sortable tables#Year, month, day. Using numbers. ISO date YYYY-MM-DD

Date (year-month-day)	Date (day-month-year)
2004- 03-05	5 Mar 2004
2004- 11-14	14 Nov 2004
2006- 11-07	7 Nov 2006
2007- 04-23	23 Apr 2007
2007- 11-28 to 2011- 12-13	28 Nov 2007 to 13 Dec 2011
2008- 06-20	20 Jun 2008
2009- 01-05	5 Jan 2009
2010- 01-25	25 Jan 2010
2014- 06-02 to 2015- 03-10	2 Jun 2014 to 10 Mar 2015
2021- 02-21	21 Feb 2021
2023- 01-28 to 2023- 02-13	28 Jan 2023 to 13 Feb 2023

In the article the numerical date column starts off wrapped due to the verbose notes column forcing it to narrow. So people don't even see the space.

The 2 competing formats. Numbers:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_reported_UFO_sightings&oldid=1140862629

Words for months:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_reported_UFO_sightings&oldid=1140840455

Both:

• User:Timeshifter/Sandbox185

--Timeshifter (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

? None of that addressed the concern that I expressed.

Regarding the other changes:

• Putting the sort arrows below headings: That's neat. I did not realize this was possible.
• Explaining the date format in the heading: Don't do this. You say "[r]eaders from all over the world understand" which I agree is true, so the explanation can only add confusion.
• Highlighting rows: This could honestly go in any table. I wonder why this is not the default.
• Simplifying continent prefixes: This is good feedback for me. If an editor with so many wiki markup tricks up his sleeve finds this too complicated, then it needs to be simpler. I will try to move the formatting of these into a template. I can also automate abbr tags and titles for accessibility.

Rjjiii (talk) 04:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps examples will be a better way to show the issue:

With spaces almost every display will drop 12-13 to its own line.

Date	Name	Location	Description
2007- 11-28 to 2011- 12-13	Dudley Dorito	EU: United Kingdom; West Midlands conurbation	The Dudley Dorito were multiple sightings of a black triangle over the West Midlands conurbation of the United Kingdom which began in November 2007. The phrase was coined by the local press after hearing witness descriptions of the object

Without spaces the year comes first and each complete date is on a line:

Date	Name	Location	Description
2007-11-28 to 2011-12-13	Dudley Dorito	EU: United Kingdom; West Midlands conurbation	The Dudley Dorito were multiple sightings of a black triangle over the West Midlands conurbation of the United Kingdom which began in November 2007. The phrase was coined by the local press after hearing witness descriptions of the object.

And to be clear, I do understand the reason for trying to make the date narrower.Rjjiii (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Table editing is a matter of many compromises. I disagree that all readers will know of the standard ISO date format of YYYY-MM-DD. I edit many tables, and I figure why not help the most people. So I make headers more informative.

I noticed in my sandbox that multiple rows of notes squished the date column even further:

Date YYYY MM-DD	Name	Location	Description
2007- 04-23	2007 Alderney UFO sighting	EU: Bailiwick of Guernsey; Alderney	Two airline pilots on separate flights spot UFOs off the coast of Alderney.
2007- 11-28 to 2011- 12-13	Dudley Dorito	EU: United Kingdom; West Midlands conurbation	The Dudley Dorito were multiple sightings of a black triangle over the West Midlands conurbation of the United Kingdom which began in November 2007. The phrase was coined by the local press after hearing witness descriptions of the object.
2008- 06-20	Wales UFO sightings	EU: United Kingdom; Various cities, Wales	According to media reports, a police helicopter was almost hit by a UFO, before it tried to pursue it. Hundreds of people reported to have witnessed a UFO on the same or preceding days, from different areas of Wales.

References

I don't think MOS says that YYYY-MM-DD can't wrap. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I've applied your updates for highlighting and the sorting row to the other tables in the article. I mentioned before that I would draft a template for adding continent prefixes for sortable locations. You can check it out here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:NASAcontinent [edit: I'm trying things out and this currently unstable. Don't use it on any page right now.]

Regarding the dates, while I disagree, I don't plan to interfere with your formatting. I am more focused on salvaging old entries and connecting this to the various UFO incident articles. Take care, Rjjiii (talk) 08:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

In the location column none of the added formatting is necessary as far as I can tell:

{{mono|[[North America|NA]]:}} [[United States]]; <br />

I removed it early on from the 21st Century table because it made no difference in how anything looked. And the column was within a millimeter in width either way.

It makes editing more difficult, and so it goes against MOS:MARKUP. See KISS Principle.

Which is also why I prefer just adding a space to each ISO date. It is the simplest way to create correctly sorting dates in a narrower column. Thus allowing more width for the description column, and creating a shorter table with less scrolling needed.

--Timeshifter (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

In the location column none of the added formatting is necessary as far as I can tell I want to pause you right there. You can stop convincing me. Really, look, I was already convinced way up at the beginning: "If an editor with so many wiki markup tricks up his sleeve finds this too complicated, then it needs to be simpler." I am happy to discuss the template if you like, but first, and this may sound strange, I would like to ask you to take a moment and try to summarize what you think I am saying. Rjjiii (talk) 11:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I hope to edit the other tables in a similar fashion. Sounds like that is OK with you?

I referred to MOS:MARKUP to support it further. I did not know of MOS:MARKUP until recently, and it seems that other editors are not familiar with it too. I knew of the history of the simplicity of wiki editing versus HTML web page editing, but not MOS:MARKUP.

And I am still baffled at what {{mono}} is doing here at all. I actually am curious. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I hope to edit the other tables in a similar fashion. Sounds like that is OK with you? Yes, go ahead ("I don't plan to interfere with your formatting.") Rjjiii (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

MOS:SIMPLIFY: See: <wbr> in this section: Help:HTML in wikitext#Formatting.

<wbr /> is not mentioned there. I substituted <wbr> for spaces in years in the date column in the 21st century section. The date wraps. When not wrapped the date does not have a space:

Date
2004-3-5
2004-11-14
2006-11-7

--Timeshifter (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Oops, I fixed Rendlesham Forest. Do you prefer spaces or <wbr> for additions to the list? Rjjiii (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I got the idea for <wbr> from one of your recent edits. Thanks! I much prefer <wbr> over spaces. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Location prefix abbreviations

I'm considering updating the continent abbreviations. I added them to make the locations sortable, but want to make sure screen readers correctly read them aloud. I created a template for this purpose.

My goals are:

• Simplify the wiki text.
• Make locations sortable.
• Add the <abbr> tag for screenreaders
• Add a spoken abbreviation title for accesibility

Current abbreviations

• IC: United States, Canada, and Colombia;
• NA: United States;
• [[Asia|AS]]: in the source markup (may be pronounced "as" instead of "ay-ess, Asia"

Proposed change using {{Continentcode}}

• •ICIC, United States, Canada, and Colombia;
• •NANA, United States;
• {{continentcode|AS}} or {{continentcode|Asia}} in the source markup

Feedback is welcome, Rjjiii (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Redirected pages

A good few articles put up for deletion were instead redirected to this page. As of tonight the following articles have working redirects to entries on the list: Milton Torres 1957 UFO Encounter, Arequipa UFO incident, and Bonsall UFO sighting

And the pages below redirect here but do not have an entry on the list:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hopeh_Incident&oldid=596516912
• https://web.archive.org/web/20140819170458/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Girardeau_UFO_crash
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tinley_Park_Lights&oldid=606888435
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hudson_Valley_Sightings&oldid=89717911

And there appear to be a few last entries to merge from this deleted list:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_alleged_aircraft%E2%80%93UFO_incidents_and_near_misses&oldid=648549762

Rjjiii (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I've added Tinley Park Lights to the list and I think I've provided an accurate summary of what reliable secondary sources say, but I'm not 100% sure if it belongs here. Even though the exact object(s) behind the lights are unknown, the lights didn't really do anything terribly unusual and the fact they appeared at consecutive Halloweens seems to strongly indicate that they were something created by people in the area to celebrate the holiday. Rjjiii (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

And all of the "near misses" that have wiki pages should now be merged into the list. Rjjiii (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Dwikora Operation UFO incident

@Alvaro Ivan Daniswara 2017: The source cited ( http://www.betaufo.org/sightings/surabaya1964.html ) in this edit likely does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source: http://www.betaufo.org/sightings/surabaya1964.html If possible, material on Wikipedia should be cited to reliable, secondary sources. For this topic, it's also necessary to find some coverage outside of ufology. More info on the policy is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Selecting_sources Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright, i'll try to get another source about the 1964 incident Alvaro Ivan Daniswara 2017 (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine UAPs?

Would this study qualify as (WP) "reliable source"?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.11215

》Conclusions

The Main Astronomical Observatory of NAS of Ukraine conducts a study of UAP. We used two meteor stations installed in Kyiv and in the Vinarivka village in the south of the Kyiv region. Observations were performed with colour video cameras in the daytime sky. A special observation technique had developed for detecting and evaluating UAP characteristics. There are two types of UAP, conventionally called Cosmics, and Phantoms. Cosmics are luminous objects, brighter than the background of the sky. Phantoms are dark objects, with contrast from several to about 50 per cent. We observed a broad range of UAPs everywhere. We state a significant number of objects whose nature is not clear. Flights of single, group and squadrons of the ships were detected, moving at speeds from 3 to 15 degrees per second. Some bright objects exhibit regular brightness variability in the range of 10 -20 Hz. Two-site observations of UAPs at a base of 120 km with two synchronised cameras allowed the detection of a variable object, at an altitude of 1170 km. It flashes for one hundredth of a second at an average of 20 Hz. Phantom shows the colur characteristics inherent in an object with zero albedos. We see an object because it shields radiation due to Rayleigh scattering. An object contrast made it possible to estimate the distance using colorimetric methods. Phantoms are observed in the troposphere at distances up to 10 -12 km. We estimate their size from 3 to 12 meters and speeds up to 15 km/s.《

and continuation:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2211.17085

》Conclusions

The Main Astronomical Observatory of NAS of Ukraine conducts a study of UAP. We used two meteor stations installed in Kyiv and in the Vinarivka village in the south of the Kyiv region. Observations were performed with color video cameras in the daytime sky. A special observation technique had developed for detecting and evaluating UAP characteristics. There are two types of UAP, conventionally called Cosmics, and Phantoms. Cosmics are luminous objects, brighter than the background of the sky. Phantoms are dark objects, with contrast from several to about 50 per cent. Two-site observations of UAPs at a base of 120 km with two synchronized cameras allowed the detection of two variable objects, at an altitude of 620 and 1130 km, moving at a speed of 256 and 78 km/s. Light curves of objects show a variability of about 10 Hz. Colorimetric analysis showed that the objects are dark: B -V = 1.35, V -R = 0.23. We demonstrate the properties of several phantoms that were observed in Kyiv and the Kyiv region in 2018-2022. Phantoms are observed in the troposphere at distances up to 10 -14 km. We estimate their size from 20 to about of 100 meters and speeds up to 30 km/s. Color properties of bright flying objects indicate that objects are perceived as very dark. Albedo less than 0.01 would seem to make them practically black bodies, not reflecting electromagnetic radiation. We can assume that a bright flying object, once in the troposphere, will be visible as a phantom. All we can say about phantoms is to repeat the famous quote: "Coming from the part of space, that lies outside Earth and its atmosphere. Means belonging or relating to the Universe".《

ELI5:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E2ZSlLH0TzE

Foerdi (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I would ask the question here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources

A lot of people watch that talk page. They're also the most familiar with the policy. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Foerdi, if you don't get a reply there, try this noticeboard: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Rjjiii (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Sadly no reply yet. Will try now in Noticeboard Foerdi (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

(My response also posted at WP:RSN). The paper is a "preprint" uploaded to a database, meaning it hasn't actually been published in any scientific journal, so no, not a WP:RS. (Neither is the UFOlogist at the YouTube link). Even if it was reliably sourced, I'm not sure what text you'd propose adding to List of reported UFO sightings. The paper concludes that "We observe a significant number of objects whose nature is not clear". That's way too vague for a "UFO sighting" entry. Also, seeing unidentified stuff in the air is not surprising in a country that is currently a target for Russian missiles, drones, planes, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Project Blue Book files

The whole Project Blue Book files (+10,000 documents) will be available on Commons soon. See c:Category:Project Blue Book. Yann (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

1 May 2023 suspected landing and visitation in Las Vegas, Nevada

This was released to media by LVMPD around 9 June. https://abc7.com/las-vegas-aliens-ufo-alien-news/13359881/ - knoodelhed (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing! Think of this list kind of like the List of homicides in California. The number of UFO sightings is so massive, that this top-level list needs to be restricted to the more notable incidents. A single year can yield hundreds of non-notable (by Wikipedia's standards) sightings. If this story continues to get coverage it could be added and/or made into a separate article. A kind of staggering number of stories like this are reported though, and then fade into memory (which would also be true of newspaper homicides and I guess where the original comparison came from). Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Air Force missilemen reports

Four ex-AF personnel have reported UFOs interacting with their missiles. See https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/10/19/air-force-veterans-who-are-ufo-true-believers-return-newly-attentive-washington.html Can/should this be added to this article? KHarbaugh (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

List of reported UFO *recoveries*?

now that we have officially acknowledged (but not yet confirmed) reports of UFO recoveries should we start another list or rename this lemma? Probably renaming to something like "List of reported UFOs" would be more generic and cover not only (alleged) sightings but also (alleged) recoveries

Ref: David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims

Foerdi (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Check out this discussion regarding the name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_reported_UFO_sightings/Archive_6#Rename And the current list already includes 2 hoaxes, several famous omens, the Roswell crash, and a few other things that aren't quite sightings, exactly. If Grusch's claims don't fade out with the next news cycle, they could also be added to:

• UFO conspiracy theories
• Unidentified flying object
• List of alleged extraterrestrial beings

I don't see a need for another list. I think that so far all of the recovery narratives would fit within one of the existing articles. Additionally, you may want to check out the article you are linking. It looks like several editors are really putting some work in there. I think just a week ago or so that page was contorted biography, and they are really restructuring it and harvesting reliable sources as soon as they find them. It looks like they're planning to nominate it for GA and I'm sure they could use someone to help with sources, editing, proofreading, discussions, writing content as news drops, etc. Good luck with whatever route you take, Rjjiii (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

now that we have officially acknowledged (but not yet confirmed) reports of UFO recoveries …a guy has gotten publicity for *claims* of alien craft recoveries. That is quite different from official acknowledgement. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Its not "official". Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

see announced (plans for) hearings. The word hearing sounds official to me ... Foerdi (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

A Senate hearing isn't "official acknowledgement" of alien UFO crashes or even claims of alien UFO crashes. A complaint was filed through proper channels so the Senate is obligated to address the complaint via a hearing. There is no additional credibility conferred by this scheduled hearing, so no reason to rename this list article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Foerdi, if you're referring to this, it's the belief of a congressman, known for his sensational utterances, and in no way anything official. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to the planned hearings. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/08/ufo-house-representatives-hearing-investigation Foerdi (talk) 04:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

A hearing is scheduled to review a complaint. Old news. And it confirms nothing, except a hearing is scheduled to review a complaint… - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I note here that Joseph Newman once received a "congressional hearing" about his ridiculous perpetual motion machine. Such hearings - let's please not forget that we are talking about the United States government here - should not be assumed to represent official acknowledgement or confirmation of anything. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Yup, I was just about to say the same thing. The UFO crowd have always been sceptical of previous government statements on the subject, and Wikipedia policy would seem to require similar scepticism now. Wait for the hearings. And for secondary commentary and analysis if there is anything of significance worth commenting on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Yep, a hearing is... an investigation it will hear evidence and then (and only then) make an official announcement of what it has found. Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

"Hopeh Incident" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Hopeh Incident has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 6 § Hopeh Incident until a consensus is reached. Rjjiii (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

1665: Air battle of Stralsund

"at 2 pm on 8 April 1665, six fishermen who are fishing for herring off the coast of Stralsund watch on as great flocks of birds in the sky morph into warships and engage in a thunderous air battle. The decks teem with ghostly figures. When, at dusk, “a flat, round shape like a plate” appears above the St. Nicholas Church, they flee. The following day, they find that they are trembling all over and complain of pain."

https://www.smb.museum/en/exhibitions/detail/a-ufo-in-1665/ Foerdi (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Please do not cherry-pick sources: The general public could not have known that what had actually been witnessed was an atmospheric reflection of a sea battle that was raging just beyond the horizon. Instead, they were convinced that the universe was ruled by a god who had the power to project visions of impending disaster into the sky. An 'explained flying object'... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Shorter lead

I've shortened the lead.[3] I am trying to avoid either drifting into original research (by making any statement about UFOs that could implicitly cover the whole list when most sources would cover only a small fraction), or duplicating the UFO article. The lead was at one point just a single sentence.[4] I don't mind the lead being tiny, but was concerned that for a reader coming to the article with an idea like "UFO = spaceship" that this would suggest itself to be a list of spaceships.Rjjiii (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

So I've tried an even shorter version. While not prohibited by MOS, a complete summary of all the important points of this topic tends to be quite awkward in the lead. I should think we can depend on the links to Unidentified flying object and identification studies of UFOs to do the heavy lifting. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

List entry descriptions...need work

Many are quite good. However a great number are written to emphasize WP:SENSATION and leave out mundane explanations from WP:FRIND sources. For example:

• Kirtland AFB UFO sighting, breathless description of a completely mysterious object observed by aviation professionals and tracked by radar (!). This is cited to a fringe manifesto by a physicist who is also a a UFO believer.
• Westall UFO, credulously described as "several hundred students and school faculty watched an object land at the Grange Reserve for horses, lift off, and vanish"...leaving out any possibility that what they saw was a drifting balloon.
• Levelland UFO case, claims of objects and mysterious electrical failures...but no mention of ball lightning or severe electrical storms.
• Phoenix Lights, hundreds of people witnessed lights etc...but no mention of the Air Force training mission dropping flares.

And many more. It's possible these were written by editors taking media reports at face value. Or reasoning that the entries should only focus on the "reported sighting" part, since that's the name of the list. Or just taking their cue from flawed articles written from credulous POV. All this is to say, the descriptions (and many of the articles) need serious review. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)