Talk:List of UFO-related hoaxes

Possible COI issues
Examination of the references associated with these entries substantiates their inclusion in this article. The facts applied are easy enough to verify, and meet the qualifications desired. Numerous documents and witness statements establish the facts, and any conclusions reached have taken these facts alone into consideration. Given that the facts applied have been based upon standard interpretations addressed by those participants most essentially involved with the cases themselves, neutrality can be assumed. It is not the editor of these assertions who has reached the conclusions made, but those of the actual participants.--69.247.70.229 (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Then you may want to cite the sources directly rather than your self-published book. As is it appears there is a bit of a war between yourself and the parties in the current article (ex. from a quick google search: 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.). Articles about living people that are negative and that don't include WP:NPOV multiple third party sources aren't appropriate for wikipedia. If you'd like, you can always elevate the discussion for moderation to get sign-off. Hope this helps. –Xtraeme (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no doubt whatsoever that those promoting this UFO hoax have done so by lying about the testimony of the officers and veterans who were the original participants in these matters. If you do not consider the written statements of these very same men in regard to these matters, i.e., that blatant lies that have been published and wrongly attributed to them, as sufficient to prove that these cases are indeed hoaxes, I invite you to examine other sources that confirm these charges. All of the documents I have published contain numerous references that establish these points. I assumed it would be easiest on everybody to have a very few documents containing the already published statements and documents used. Apparently, I was mistaken. If you prefer to examine the many claims separately, please do. The following references addressed by numerous authors have been applied and found to substantiate as well the conclusions reached above:

I don't have the time right now, but I'll comeback later to fix the below references so you can just click on them to go to the reference.

The Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967, article by Ryan Dube.

The Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident – Part II, article by Ryan Dube.

The Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident – Part III, article by Ryan Dube.

An Interview With Malmstrom AFB Witness Eric Carlson, article and interview by Ryan Dube.

The Echo Flight UFO Debate Continues, article by Ryan Dube.

The James Carlson Malmstrom Problem, article by Ryan Dube.

Did UFOs Disable Minuteman Missiles at Malmstrom AFB in 1967? , article by Ryan Dube.

Case Closed? A Re-Evaluation of the Echo Flight Incident, article by Stephen Broadbent.

Did UFOs Disable Minuteman Missiles at Malmstrom AFB in 1967? , article by Tim Hebert.

Off Alert, Echo Flight, 0845: A Reconstruction...Part 1, article by Tim Hebert.

Off Alert, Echo Flight: The "UFO" Encounter...Part 2, article by Tim Hebert.

Walter Figel: No UFOs at Echo and Doubtful of Shutdowns at Oscar, article by Tim Hebert.

Robert Hastings: "James Carlson Just Can't Get It"...Again? , article by Tim Hebert.

Robert Hastings' Swiss Cheese Factor...Henry Barlow, article by Tim Hebert.

Two Alternative UFO Theories For Echo Flight, article by Tim Hebert.

An Important Echo Flight Factor: The SIN Line, article by Tim Hebert.

The Erosion of Echo's UFO Corner Stone, article by Tim Hebert.

Case Closed! A Re-Evaluation of the Echo Flight Incident, article by Tim Hebert.

Echo Flight: The Makings of a UFO Myth, article by Tim Hebert.

The Oscar Flight Mystery: The Other Malmstrom UFO Story, article by Tim Hebert.

The Oscar Flight Mystery: Fred Meiwald, article by Tim Hebert.

The Oscar Flight Mystery: Robert Jamison, article by Tim Hebert.

The Oscar Flight Mystery: Dwynne Arneson, article by Tim Hebert.

Former Air Force Member Chimes In...Jamison, UFOs and EMPs, article by Tim Hebert.

The Oscar Flight Mystery: A Tree Falling in a UFO Forest, article by Tim Hebert.

Oscar and Echo Flights: Wikipedia's UFO Conundrum, article by Tim Hebert.

Wikipedia Oscar Flight UFO Update, article by Tim Hebert.

Oscar Flight Gone from Wikipedia, article by Tim Hebert.

Better Than Nothing...Wikipedia and Oscar Flight's UFO Saga, article by Tim Hebert.

Robert Hastings Double Downs on Echo and Oscar Flights, article by Tim Hebert.

The Oscar Flight Mystery: UFO Narratives, article by Tim Hebert.

Engineering Change Proposal 1221: The Air Force's Success Against UFO Attacks, article by Tim Hebert.

Flat Earth Nukes, article by David Clarke.

Once I've managed to format everything according to your desires, I will be adding more reports -- the actual military records and histories that support these findings, some of which were only declassified in 2004. These are the TOP SECRET contemporary histories detailing America's ICBM use. None of them even mention a UFO, because there was no mention of UFOs. There was no sighting, no report, and no investigation, all of which were required by regulation in the event of a real UFO. The entire incident was declassified in 1979, so it can't even be claimed that the UFO aspect is still considered to be classified information.

For the record, there is no war between accounts. There are proven lies on one side, and the truth on the other. When someone publishes an account of an incident that says "source A confirms that situation B existed, and event C occurred" and source A come back and says "I never said anything of the sort, and these people have lied outright in regard to my testimony," there can be no real dispute. And when those promoting "event C" try to prove their point using recordings of a telephone conversation with "source A" that has been obviously edited, is made up of statements taken out of context that "source A" insists is incomplete and does not reference an actual assertion that he has made, and that the perpetrators of this hoax ADMIT has been edited and refuse to release the full recording, you don't call it a "war" or a dispute of the truth -- you call it what it is: a LIE, which constitutes a hoax.

This is not difficult, and I don't understand why you people seem to think it is. I tried repeatedly to outline the entire issue for you before, after you had published an egregiously dishonest accounting of this UFO hoax as part of your general article on Malmstrom AFB, and the only real response I got from you was that it apparently wasn't worthy of your attention, because there was too much goddamn evidence for you to consider. Why do you think I broke everything down to as few references as possible? And now, when I give you the information in short, happy statements with full references, you apparently believe it is not enough information for you to accept the points established. WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU NEED TO ESTABLISH A FACT?

In 1996 a UFO hoax was perpetrated in regard to an actual event that took place in March 1967. One man insisted that the event in question had been confirmed by all of those men who participated in the actual event his claims are based on. Every one of these allegedly confirmative witnesses have come forward to dispute the claims made. They have all written statements rejecting this account. The raised so many questions of errors and dishonest assessment, that those perpetrating this hoax have been forced to change every detail of the claims they've established even as to date and location to such a great extent that NOBODY examining that evidence could possibly walk away thinking, "that's a solid case," because every detail has been changed over the years. The only thing that HASN'T been changed are the claims that the story was confirmed by the very men who have repeatedly insisted that it's all a LIE! Not ONE of the men these people continue to call confirmation witnesses have EVER been willing to assert the actual presence of a UFO! NOT ONE! All, in fact, insist that they do not even BELIEVE in UFOs!

TELL ME WHAT YOU NEED TO ESTABLISH THE VERY PLAIN FACT THAT THIS UFO CLAIM IS A LIE. I'll happily give it to you, because it's pretty easy to establish. The only people willing to continue stretching the publication of the lie are those websites who simply don't care that it's a lie. I was under the impression that Wikipedia was interested in FACTS. Do you want me to send you copies of these letters these men have written stating that the claims are bunk? Do you want them side by side with the claims of those perpetrating this hoax saying they have confirmed the claims made? How about video tapes of them pointing at each and every detail in a written account and saying, "that's a lie, that's a lie, that's a lie, and that's a lie!" Do you require more evidence than the U.S. Department of Justice AND the Supreme Court to establish a simple fact? TELL ME WHAT YOU WANT. I have tried to give you everything you've asked for, and every time I do you people either tell me it's too much or it's not enough.

And for the record, the websites you've tallied above to assert claims of a "war" have either edited or deleted most of the valid claims that I've made therein. They do NOT represent a valid or accurate reference of my claims, nor are they willing to discuss the accounts of the men who were actually present at the incident. Try looking at websites that don't depend on the free copy of UFO publishers in order to attract the attention of people who in turn don't care about the evidence as long as they've got one man who's willing to tell them exactly what they want to hear, regardless of how many easily proven lies he's willing to sell them.--69.247.70.229 (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * WRT. "I tried repeatedly to outline the entire issue for you before, after you had published an egregiously dishonest accounting of this UFO hoax as part of your general article on Malmstrom AFB, and the only real response I got from you was that it apparently wasn't worthy of your attention, because there was too much goddamn evidence for you to consider."


 * I have no idea what you're talking about. Were you having a discussion before with someone else? In any event, as heated as your commentary runs here I can tell you point blank that you shouldn't be writing this article. You have far too much of an investment in the subject (especially now that I read someone was even considering a lawsuit against you). As linked to earlier, "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."


 * The problems I outlined were very clear. I noticed the section in question used the same self-published source over and over again without 3rd party citations. If you want to establish a view as being authoritative you should consider getting it published by a respected journal or book publisher. Wikipedia doesn't accept original research. Wikipedia doesn't take sides. It tries to present all points of view. Neutral wording is paramount as are third party sources, especially when talking about living people ...


 * "Never use self-published sources as sources about any living people except the author himself, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." (Please see WP:Identifying_and_using_self-published_sources for more). This is non-negotiable.


 * Currently your article is lacking reliability and third parties sources. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a means of promotion.


 * If you want to make the article more encyclopedic. Here is a good example of a semi-balanced editorial on the subject. Perhaps you could adapt the pro/con elements and use some of the sources you linked to above to meet WP's requirements. As is, it's not at all clear from the linked article that the following assertion is true: "There is no doubt whatsoever that those promoting this UFO hoax have done so by lying about the testimony of the officers and veterans who were the original participants in these matters. "


 * As noted earlier from WP:NPOV,


 * "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." —Xtraeme (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hoaxes involving military incidents
A new category -- Hoaxes involving military incidents -- was added to this listing by James Carlson; the category includes two entries: "The Echo Flight UFO Incident (March 16, 1967)" and "The Oscar Flight UFO Incident (March 24, 1967)". Full sourcing and references have been included, so there are no grounds for deletion of the entries, as was applied 18 May 2013. The deletion was completed by unknown individual(s) in order to facilitate the continuation of these hoaxes to the public via a national press conference review organized under the title "Citizen Hearing on Disclosure" (http://www.citizenhearing.org). The main perpetrator of these two hoaxes, Mr. Robert Salas, is still trying to present his claims, and is a part of this hearing on disclosure.

Make no mistake, however. These two events meet all of the requirements necessary to be included in this list of UFO hoaxes, and they have been fully referenced and discussed. The acts of those perpetrating these hoaxes have been fully documented and make very clear not only their intentions in regard to UFO hoaxes, but the fallacious quality of their claims in the first place, part of which is their silent attempt to edit this listing without cause or explanation. There are no grounds for their deletion, and no attempt was made to explain their possible reasons for doing so. The fact that the perpetrators of a UFO hoax are still attempting to present their spurious claims to the public is not sufficient reason to delete these incidents from this list of UFO hoaxes, and unless a proper challenge is at some point adjudicated by the administrators and editors of Wikipedia, any further attempts to advance the fictional claims they have addressed by attempting to hide the qualities of those claims that reveal their true character will be equally useless, because I'll simply put everything back the way it was, and is.

Part of the unique quality of Wikipedia that makes it such a valued resource is the protocol it has developed to reach considerations and accord regarding what can be supported as fact, and what cannot. By ignoring such protocol in order to practice the deceit represented by hiding dispute and the facts that negate their ridiculous claims, those perpetrating UFO hoaxes make very clear the absence of foundation to their assertions. When claims are established by hiding the proof of their falsity, they -- and those attempting to use such means -- deserve to be packed off into the garbage to which we customarily dispose of useless things, thoughts, and impressions. Let them present a case instead of trying to hide proof of their lies. Every point I've addressed in this listing has been properly referenced, and properly applied. As such, they should only be deleted with cause, and that cause has yet to be presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.70.229 (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Will someone please tell me why an anonymous individual is being allowed to delete or change this particular part of the UFO hoaxes list? Is this sort of activity normal for Wikipedia? And if it is, what's the point of addressing accepted issues when none of it is allowed for casual readers? After all, "All the legal freedom to modify or distribute educational content is useless if users cannot get access to it." Clearly, a dispute resolution is necessary. Until this decides the question I will continue to restore the listing that has been continuously redeployed with purposefully wrong information and blatant, easily confirmed lies. By refusing to discuss the reasons for your editing of the issues presented, you're just making it easier to consider your assertions the cowardly acts of a man who refuses to discuss his own take on the matter, is unable to convince others to accept his claims, and has no intention whatsoever of using traditional means -- i.e., confirmed evidence and the complete accounts of witnesses instead of partial comments taken out of context in order to make a point. Your call, but I'm not going anywhere.

This is the third time an anonymous user has edited or deleted entire sections of this listing. If this continues, I will request user is blocked. It takes me two seconds to restore the content, so simply vandalizing the entry is pointless, and can possibly be used to block your IP address from making further changes. In addition, you're providing me with numerous opportunities to ridicule the practice of deceit used by UFO proponent community members who are incapable of relying on honest assessments to promote their claims. Robert, you're just hurting your own cause by attacking commentary that's so easily confirmed as factual. You might consider the harm you're doing to your own reputation. Every time you refuse to confront evidence in order to rely on censorship and the complete refusal to debate the issues, you're just killing yourself in public. Have fun! Signed, James Carlson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.70.229 (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless otherwise indicated by disruptive activity, anyone can edit any article on Wikipedia, anonymous or not. All edits are subject to potential review and revision by other editors, anonymous or not, to see whether the edits and the content of the article after the edit are in compliance with Wikipedia policies such as : Is the content in the article verifiable as having been previously published by a reliable source and presented in a neutral point of view so that the article represents the views of the mainstream academic community towards the subject of the article and does not present original research ideas and concepts of the Wikipedia editors or others whose ideas are outside of the standard academic and scientific views of the subject. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * in this case it appears that the anonymous IP was generally correct in removing larges swaths of materials that have not been published by reliable third party publishers with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

'''If you had taken the time to review what was done, you would have noted that the only portions affected had indeed been referenced to third party sources that conclusively established the matter. Are you people always so careless about the the claims you dispute? What was removed was all mention of Frederick Meiwald's insistence that he remembers NOTHING about a UFO being sighted at Oscar Flight coincident to missile failures. The references establishing that were his direct quotes as recorded by Robert Hastings and contained in his own articles.

When interviewed by Robert Hastings, Meiwald stated unequivocally that he doesn't remember anything at all about a UFO. In fact, Robert Hastings himself has written:

“Meiwald then elaborated and said that he couldn’t support everything Salas has said about the incident because he had been resting/sleeping when the first missile or two dropped offline -— which occurred moments after Salas received a report from the Oscar Flight Security Controller about a UFO hovering over the Launch Control Facility’s front gate.

“Although Salas had quickly told Meiwald about that telephone conversation, Meiwald says that he can’t remember it.”

In another interview conducted by Hastings, Meiwald is equally clear:

"RH: Okay. Now, when Bob, I think moments [after] he woke you up, or you got up and sat down at the commander’s consol — he of course had received a call from the Flight Security Controller, saying that there was a bright red, oval-shaped object hovering over the security fence gate—my understanding is that is what he told you as soon as you were at your consol, that he had received this call and, uh, that of course coincided with the missiles beginning to malfunction. Do you recall him telling you that?

"FM: I really don’t remember that portion of it, relative to the bright object. I remember an unusual condition [but] as far as the details, uh, I can’t elaborate on that."

The following exchange is also revealing:

"RH: Okay. He of course has also said that you two were, uh, when you were back at Malmstrom, you were debriefed by OSI and required to sign non-disclosure statements. Do you remember that?

"FM: I remember being directed to do that. But that was no problem. I’ve been one of these people, when told to forget something, I forget it—eventually [inaudible].

"RH: Right, well, is that a polite way of saying that you really don’t want to discuss this, even though you know more than you’re saying?

"FM: No, I’m saying I don’t remember."

For nearly ten years Salas was using Meiwald as confirmation of the events at both November Flight and Oscar Flight, stating that either my father or someone else called Meiwald on March 16 and told him all about Echo Flight. When interviewed by Hastings, Meiwald stated, "Whatever happened over at Echo, I have no idea." He has rebuffed completely the attempts by Hastings and Salas to establish confirmation for the UFOs they've invented.

Meiwald has also clearly stated in other interviews with Salas that only 3-4 missiles failed during the one missile failures event he has recalled; he's NEVER stated outright that the UFO story he told Salas in 1996 had anything at all to do with missile failures; it's never even been mentioned in context.

'''Why do you people ask for detailed references if you have no intention of actually reviewing them? Given the repeated dancing around these issues that you're forcing me to take while showing a marked willingness to publish anything at all that may be contrary to what actually occurred I really don’t remember that portion of it, relative to the bright object.n 1967, this question is NOT an insignificant one. You and other editors have shown yourself willing to publish the most egregious lies imaginable without once objecting, but as soon as I edit or append actual facts, suddenly there's a problem. I have referenced these matters repeatedly. Why are you (and other editors) so unwilling to examine what I've taken the time to set down? I didn't draft this screwy list of yours, I merely added to it, which is exactly what was requested in the heading of the heading -- and I did so with complete references (including third party references) that you have decided to arbitrarily ignore.'''

Are you people ALWAYS this careless with the facts? I'd say that's a reasonable question in light of your inability to examine what I have repeatedly presented. IF YOU DON'T EXAMINE THE REFERENCES, HOW THE HELL CAN YOU SAY THEY AREN'T THIRD PARTY REFERENCES? BECAUSE THE ONLY EDITS CONDUCTED ABOVE, THE ARBITRARY USE OF A CUTTING TOOL TO DESTROY A FINISHED ENTRY, WAS FULLY REFERENCED TO THE THIRD PARTY SOURCES I HAVE DISCUSSED ABOVE.

'''Is English your first language? Do you disagree that a witness statement insisting "I really don’t remember that portion of it, relative to the bright object" should be interpreted as "I don't remember"? And when that witness offers his testimony to a third party interviewer who is, in fact, opposed to the conclusions reached, who promptly publishes a transcription of that interview, is my reference to that transcription somehow unwarranted by you as something I wrote that I published?'''

'''I'll ask you again: why have you removed entire sections of an article for not using third party references, or for not referencing claims at all when I have used third party references, and I have justified completely the claims made? I gave you everything you asked for, and you IGNORED it. And even though you and other editors have repeatedly asked for summary statements from me detailing why I made such and such a change, you have apparently decided that it is a worthy example to delete most of the list you have had online for a very long time without once justifying such an act. Do you consider this to be a well-balanced policy intended to enforce neutrality?'''

I assure you, it doesn't look that from here. Do you have any explanation? --69.247.70.229 (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)''' --69.247.70.229 (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * tl;dr with far too much emphasis. You will find you have much better chance of your points being read and addressed and reacted to if you are concise. Almost absolutely everything at Wikipedia articles and talk space is done by volunteers and most volunteers find they have better things to do with their time than wading through walls of text. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I prefer being correct to being concise. The fact that the comments and justifications you've offered are NOT true, and reflect only your willingness to offer an explanation that explains nothing, because it doesn't even apply suggests that you should probably pay a little more attention to these matters. When you excuse the cuts made as necessary because they aren't third party when the only references made were third party shows a remarkable tendency for bullshit. And you haven't even TRIED to justify the cuts you've made. Don 't give me goddamn excuses that can't possibly be supported in fact. Justify your acts as you've demanded of others.--69.247.70.229 (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

And if you can't hack it as a volunteer, than don't volunteer. Either stick to your protocols or Quit.

UIT.--69.247.70.229 (talk) 09:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Heres how to be correct and concise: it was crap that violated basic content policies of WP:N / WP:OR / WP:RS / WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

CORRECTION: It was "crap that violated basic content policies of WP:N / WP:OR / WP:RS / WP:NPOV and WP:BLP" a year ago when I first suggested that you get rid of the issue entirely because there wasn't a word of truth to any of it in the first place. It's taken me A YEAR of this complete BS just to get you to recognize the difference between a factual statement and a fictional cause without one single redeeming feature to preserve. And after a year of going through this complete and utter load of crap with you guys, you finally took the one course I had recommended you take in July 2012: get rid of the offending paragraph and learn to recognize the difference between a valid reference and something imaginary. For God's sake, anybody could come around here and publish whatever the Hell they want just so long as they make up a few references, and not one of you guys would be able to tell the difference, because not one of you guys has shown yourselves willing to examine both claims AND references. You figure the whole thing is okay if you've got a few numbered references at the bottom of the page, apparently not realizing that REFERENCES can be invented just as quickly as text! And then you want a pat on the back for being a volunteer? Well, I'm not getting paid to correct your mistakes either, but at the very least I'm willing to provide the "summary statements explaining why changes were applied", I'm willing to give you the validated, third-party references requested, and I'm willing to give you advice and an educated point-of-view that you so sorely need. What have you done lately? Oh, wait -- you took the course I originally recommended a year ago to solve this problem. Do you really think you and your fellow editors should be exonerated for your many errors of fact, your rude advice, your inability to measure the worth of a claim based entirely on references that have NEVER met your own "basic content policies of WP:N / WP:OR / WP:RS / WP:NPOV and WP:BLP" -- something you may have been able to figure out had you bothered to examine those references in the first place as I begged you to do in July 2012? Are your excuses supposed to serve as an explanation as to why you were so willing to delete entire paragraphs for using what you admit are improper and egregiously inappropriate references after allowing contrary assessments and claims to be accepted as valid and thereafter allowed to foster the sheer lunacy of extrapolation on the basis of exactly the same references originally approved with only the bare trappings of review? Is your -- and other editors' -- unjustifiable arrogance throughout this entire debacle supposed to be interpreted as a willingness to assist those who possess little of your alleged expertise? A little consistency would be far more helpful than your excuses. You suggest that I'm to blame for ignoring "crap that violated basic content policies of WP:N / WP:OR / WP:RS / WP:NPOV and WP:BLP" while I'm the only one who suggested that the articles already published should have been and should be examined in order to determine whether or not it is indeed "crap that violated basic content policies of WP:N / WP:OR / WP:RS / WP:NPOV and WP:BLP", an apparent solution none of you have been willing to apply this past year. Thanks for that.--69.247.70.229 (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * tl;dr. I will just assume your right. We are now done here, as these rants have no possibility of improving the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Why I will NEVER donate money to Wikipedia
Because of articles like this one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.9.151.254 (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nobody cares about your religion here.--2A0C:5A80:3912:400:5955:D5BC:655:6761 (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

This page is redundant; should be merged with "List of UFO sightings"
What is the point of this page? It lists only a handful of cases, and reading through it, the identification of them as hoaxes appears to be largely the opinion of the authors. For example, the Ilkley Moor alien, which is acknowledged to be unsolved, but is listed here because it's "probably" a hoax. Aren't most UFO sightings probably a hoax? With that in mind, anyone is free to cherry-pick which cases they believe to be real or not based on their own opinion. Some of the cases on the "List of UFO sightings" page are suggested to be hoaxes in their description. Who decides which cases go here and which go on the other page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.171.196 (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Most UFO sightings are misidentifications of normal meteorological and astronomical phenomena, as well as, of course, aircraft. Abyssal (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I suppose that's true. My point though is that this page seems to have no point except to serve as bait for edit warring. The Ilkley Moor alien is a case in point; the contributor admits there is no actual evidence it is a hoax, but it is included because it is "probably" a hoax. But what distinguishes it from the other cases on "List of UFO sightings" that are suggested to be a hoax? I personally think that the Trent UFO photos and the Billy Meier case are obvious hoaxes, but they are popular among UFO enthusiasts and I can't justify putting them on this list based on my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.171.196 (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This article's history tab doesn't seem to show much edit warring. Inclusion should be based reliable third party sources. If there are sightings listed in that article with reliable sources regarding them as hoaxes then they should be listed here as well. Abyssal (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The lengthy discussions above do suggest there has been ongoing heated debate, if not actual edit warring. The list to me seems to small to warrant its own page, along with the fact that there doesn't seem to be any clear qualifier as to what gets counted as a hoax and what doesn't. Most cases have several claims and counter-claims from both sides. Anyway, I do have 3rd party sources for the Trent photos, Billy Meier and a few other notable cases, so I will add them if I get the chance and hope it doesn't cause a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.171.196 (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Gulf Breeze
Strongly suspected: Gulf Breeze UFO incident
 * "'…9 inches long across the top and 5 inches deep. Made of two nine-inch foam plates attached to two six-inch foam plates; a six inch square blue-color gel (plastic film) and on six inch round orange paper ring, a 3.5 inch long tube, and a 2 inch wide paper ring between the 2 nine inch plates. There were windows drawn on the model which was covered with drafting paper.'"

And of course the Billy Meier case
 * Kortoso (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Robert Salas is truthful
Robert Salas is NOT a hoaxer!! He is a truthful man. And he and many others have confirmed that the minuteman nuclear warheads went into no go state in 1967. Big shame to the people that call this man a hoaxer. Big shame for mankind because we all deserve transparency on this topic! Remsey290774 (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Which article are you referring to?Moriori (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear, start again...
It's this sort of can't-be-bothered attitude that gives Wikipedia a bad name. This page looks as though a kid started cobbling it together, got bored after a while, and never came back to finish the job. Which makes me wonder about the reliability of the pages I have to take on trust.

The most important of the 1897 Mystery Airship sightings was undoubtedly the alleged crash in Aurora, Texas, after a low-flying spacecraft hit a windmill, resulting in the recovery of the dead body of its monstrous pilot, who was presumed to be a Martian, but was nevertheless given a Christian burial. Until quite late in the 20th century this story, which was backed up by detailed accounts in the local paper, was assumed by many ufologists to be true, and attempts were made to locate the unmarked grave of the "Martian" and get an exhumation order. The truth is that after the new railroad unexpectedly bypassed Aurora its economy slumped, and the locals reckoned a tall tale involving those "mystery airships" everyone was talking about in 1897 might do wonders for tourism.

There you are: a classic UFO hoax, and an obvious candidate for this page. Yet the only mention of it is a passing reference in a paragraph about another equally implausible anecdote from the same period, nearly all of which is a verbatim quote from a fanatically pro-UFO book by David Jacobs arguing that these stories weren't hoaxes at all!

The section on crashed UFO hoaxes is equally useless. It briefly describes the very well-known Ray Santilli alien autopsy film, and two very obscure and almost completely forgotten British incidents involving miniature fake flying saucers. But I see no mention of Frank Scully's 1950 book "Behind the Flying Saucers". Written by a gossip columnist with no scientific background based on information provided by two mysterious men claiming to be renegade scientists on the run from the US government and therefore unable to give their real names, it told the amazing story of the retrieval of a crashed flying saucer and the bodies of its diminutive humanoid crew, and the subsequent cover-up. Basically, the entire Roswell Incident narrative, three decades before any of these elements were attached to Roswell.

It was a bestseller, until the truth came out that the two shadowy whistleblowers were professional con-artists trying to pull off a ridiculously over-elaborate scam, their ultimate aim being to set themselves up as people who could get their hands on extraterrestrial technology, allowing them to sell oil-well detecting machines that worked by space magic for vast sums to rich idiots who wanted to get even richer. I'd call that a fairly important UFO-related hoax, wouldn't you?

Sighting hoaxes - why include this section at all if, faced with an endless list of people who say they saw an alien spaceship but turned out to be lying, you can't be bothered to write any content at all, and just provide links to two other articles chosen more or less at random?

And as for photographic hoaxes... Well, firstly, if you're discussing specific photographs in an illustrated encyclopedia, shouldn't you include the actual photos? Not that it matters, since out of all the possible candidates for this section, of which there are an enormous number - for example, Charles Adamski, Billy Meier, Gulf Breeze, or from the UK, those enterprising youngsters Stephen Darbishire and Alex Birch, the latter of whom achieved his 15 minutes of fame back in the day by the fiendishly sophisticated method of sticking cardboard cutouts of flying saucers to his bedroom window - the one solitary example you can come up with is the 1987 "Ilkley Moor Alien".

Which was presumably the first one the author found, and the only one he could be bothered to write a few words about before wandering off to play with his Legos. This is a lousy example, since, strictly speaking, it's not a hoax. The picture, which of course you don't show, even though it's the very thing you're discussing, has not demonstrably been faked in the photographic sense, and the only witness has never admitted that his story is a pack of lies, so this unlikely tale is in the category of "innocent until proven guilty". Describing it as a proven hoax because a tabloid newspaper claims to have identified the "alien" as a specific person would not, I think, stand up in court, since it requires even more imagination to see the tiny blurred figure as an insurance broker than it does to see it as a space alien. Personally, I think it looks like a floppy dummy of some sort, possibly a very large plush toy, awkwardly propped up with sticks.

And where's the Spanish Ummo Affair, the longest-running and most elaborate UFO hoax ever, complete with extremely well-faked photos and almost-convincing physical proof of extraterrestrial technology?

And so on. Really, you should be ashamed of half-hearted laziness like this. Either write a real article or admit you simply can't be bothered and delete this feeble stub. It's making you look bad.