Talk:List of reported UFO sightings/Archive 5

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

Australia Alien Sighting

I am asking permission to add details (not many) to the Australian Alien Sighting. I am not going to source them since the details are included in the cite it already has. Informed Person Dont know time 08 May 2011

This is an obvious puerile hoax perpetrated by a teenager (and there are thousands similar to this circulating in YouTube etc_). Just watch the video referred to. I suggest it be removed forthwith, so as to preserve some basic credibility for this page. Damf1 (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Done Informed Person —Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC).

Nuremberg 1561

News notice printed in Nuremberg, describing the 4th April 1561 Nuremberg mass sighting. Discs and spheres were said to emerge from large cylinders. From Wickiana collection in Zurich.

Can someone add the 1561 Nuremberg Sighting to the list? (the article is currently read-only).

The engraving and associated news article are sourced directly from the Wickiana collection of Zurich Library, as can be seen in the link in the wikipedia commons page. In the news notice, the sighting is described as some kind of battle that occurred for about 1 hour, ended when a large black triangle object arrived, and caused a large crash with smoke outside the city (as depicted), thus it doesn't appear to be a simple atmospheric phenomenon ("sun dog" or parhelion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.169.244 (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Haiti, August 2007

Should we add this one? VinTheMetalhed 19:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Uncited Material

Here is a list of uncited material (remained like that for a few week and months) ... add them back in when citation is found (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 15:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The one about Neil Armstrong lacks support. This is discussed on 426-32 of First Man: The life of Neil A. Armstrong, by James Hansen. The rumors appear to be exagurations of two events: (1) they could see flashes of light. These turned out to be cosmic rays hitting the retina, and (2) on the third day (the day before the landing) they spotted some fairly distant object, roughly going along with them. It was probably one of the panels from the S-IVB third stage of the Saturn V. Bubba73 (talk), 00:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
PS, the same section says that the 1965 photo by Borman is not true either. Bubba73 (talk), 00:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I see nothing wrong with someone showing both sides of the story, no forcing a point of view through someones research, NPOV issue (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 00:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've been following the space program since 1964 and UFOs since 1966, and I don't know of any reliable source for either of these (Borman 1965, Armstrong 1969). Bubba73 (talk), 01:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hudson Valley Sightings. I added, in the original article (see [1]), the book Night Siege (ISBN 0-345-34213-5) by J. Allen Hynek, as a reference. Someone redirected that article to this list, and copied the text without that reference. Google for it (Hudson Valley Sightings), and you'll see the event is quite "famous" and notable. I'm not sure what you mean by "reliable source" when it comes to UFO sightings: the event is depicted in popular culture, that's not hard to find a reliable source for. What the sighted object actually was, or if it was just made up, is another thing, just like any other UFO-sighting. Kricke 15:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Close Encounters of the First Kind

Close Encounters of the Second Kind

  • 1948 - Petra, Jordan, ground trace, UFO left an obscure impression.
  • 1965 - Northeast Blackout of 1965 UFOs were allegedly sighted and was theorized as the cause of the blackout.
  • 1971 - Delphos ground trace, UFO left an obscure impression.
  • 1982 - Baikonur Cosmodrome Raid, the launching site was temporarily shut down after having been supposedly raided and sabotaged by UFOs in June.
  • 1993 - Carp, Ontario, Canada An anonymous video of a UFO landing in a wheat field, followed by black and white photographs of an alleged alien from the spacecraft. Had official Canadian investigation, claimed to be a hoax, but many believers not convinced.
  • 2001 - Kirkby Liverpool, UK Several crowds of people across the small town of Kirkby spot a luminous yellow ring moving quickly across the daytime sky.
  • 2003 - North America Blackout UFOs allegedly sighted before the blackout.[citation needed]

Close Encounters of the Third Kind

UFO Sightings

Combining Encounters

Nice job! This page looks great. Very functional. :-) --Careax 02:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I noticed that there are a few encounters that are wrong. SolarWindSolarWind123 (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Small List

There is a small list of nations. I notice that all are either predominantly Christian or Muslim. Why?

Congressman Spots UFO

This should be incl. here. The Congressman is Kusinich, who is a current presidential canidate. The UFO was one of those Flying triangles. 65.163.112.104 19:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


Battle of Los Angeles/Reptillians

The following in Quotes are from wikipedia articles:

"Unidentified aerial objects trigger the military to fire thousands of anti-aircraft rounds into the sky and raise the wartime alert status." "Within hours of the end of the air raid (February 25), Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox held a press conference and opined that the entire incident was a "false alarm" due to anxiety and "war nerves". Many in the press doubted this explanation, some suspecting a cover up. An editorial in the Long Beach Independent wrote, "There is a mysterious reticence about the whole affair and it appears that some form of censorship is trying to halt discussion on the matter.'" "Aside from unidentified airplanes, proposed explanations of the event then and now have included misidentification of weather balloons, sky lanterns, and Japanese fire balloons or blimps.However, in the case of Japanese fire balloons (a proposal from later decades), they did not even exist in 1942. Some witnesses said the object caught in the searchlights was moving too slowly to have been a plane and there was common speculation in the newspapers that it was some type of balloon, such as a weather balloon or a Japanese blimp [7] Various problems noted with such explanations included the fact that many witnesses reported sighting multiple objects, not a single weather balloon or blimp, some moving at much faster aircraft speed, and the extreme unlikelihood that any balloon-like object could have survived such a massive bombardment. American balloon experts also opined it unlikely that the Japanese would use blimps since they had no fireproof helium to fill them and a blimp filled with explosive hydrogen gas would be even more unlikely to survive. [8] In any case, no debris from the purported object or objects was ever reported on the ground following the bombardment. Since some high government officials such as Army Chief of Staff Gen. George C. Marshall and Secretary of War Henry Stimson (see below) declared real aircraft to be involved, yet no satisfactory explanation was ever forthcoming, some Ufologists in the present day feel the incident should be treated as an early and true UFO sighting, much like the so-called Foo fighters later reported during the war by Allied flight crews."

maybe the military launched the planes in the Battle of Los Angeles beacuse the ufo's were Reptillian aircraft--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Stephenville, Texas

Any article on this yet: http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/080115-ap-texas-ufo.html 206.17.98.11 (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I placed it in the table yesterday. I sourced it to the Wichita Eagle. -- Bellwether BC 20:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Someone seems to be vandalising this article. As far as I can see the recent sighting in Texas has been removed many times.83.145.204.70 (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Shreveport, Louisiana UFO

See http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?s=7700063. This incl. a tape shot by a local woman that depicts a HUGE UFO. This is now a "Flap" that is now going on for 16 days straight. Other local media is also reporting this thing, as is some national media. 65.163.113.170 (talk) 08:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

FOX News UFO

Saw on this place today that two PIs are after the photog that took pixes of a really bizarre UFO. Google FOX News/ UFO for more. the photog took pixes of a really strange UFO, now he has disappeared, and as stated, two PIs are after this guy. 50% say it is a damn good hoax, 50% say the damn thing is real. 65.173.105.141 (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


Mexico City UFO

Wasn't there a FAMOUS UFO incident in Mexico City where millions of people saw it, and like 4 people have it on tape, but i can't seem to find it anywhere. What i remember: it was black and flew really low, it flew behind a church(i think), it was on some show i watched (on the history channel I believe)--I am a Wikipedian (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


You're referring to the mass sighting of July 11th 1991 during the solar eclipse? I'm surprised such a famous incident with so much media behind it isn't on this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.77.198 (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sacramento 1896

November 17th 1896 there was a famous sighting in Sacramento, California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingermint (talk • contribs) 06:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Daylight orb/ufo pictures New Zealand

These (low resolution) pictures are of hovering "lightballs" in New Zealand (2008, with Nikon D80+tele). They were absolutely invisible with the naked eye. In the blue picture, there are about 90 of them. By doing all kinds of test with the camera any kind of flaws in the photographic proces were ruled out. The hovering balls of light (sometimes as a translucent ball with a bright core, sometimes as a milky white/ silvery mat ball) are not a matter of believing, they are a matter of knowing. http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/8318/dsc3410kopiezv9.jpg http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/2100/dsc2117ckopie10spotskoplz6.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.204.72 (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Romanian Military Jet Attacked by UFOs - Says UPI

See this link. It states that UFOs have attacked a Romanian jet fighter. 65.173.104.109 (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't place it. The article(s) is(are) protected. 65.173.104.109 (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

See wikinews link:

Wikinews has related news:

StevePrutz (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Early Irish sighting

It is recorded in the Annals of Ulster, that in 749ad, “Ships with their crews were seen in the air above Cluain Moccu Nóis.” (Clonmacnoise, County Offaly, Ireland). Could someone add this to the UFO sightings list? Stephen2nd (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Canada Reports RECORD UFO sightings

See http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=12d76f32-16fe-47e4-a70c-93fa1e065af1

Canada Reports Massive UFO Sightings in 4 Provinces. I can't place it at all. Malfunction?! 65.173.104.138 (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Scope of article, limit to major cases

At the moment the table includes some sightings for which articles are not likely to be created. I think this article page should be limited to well referenced, major sightings, and each record, except for the first few ancient ones, should be accompanied by a main article. Sightings with fewer references or of lesser importance should be included under the country concerned, such as 'UFO sightings in Argentina', for instance. That means that the introduction should be rewritten somewhat, and some records should be deleted. JMK (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong location

The sighting of 01-08-2008 was not in Hungary, but in England.

Removal of poorly cited material

There are a number of "UFO sightings" that are referenced to UFO-enthusiast groups. These are not reliable sources. I will tag the ones that are problematic and if references aren't found to independent, third-party sources (not UFO-enthusiast websites!) I will remove the sightings. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This list is long overdue for an immediate scrubbing. Sourcing requirements for lists are the same as those for any other article. All unsourced list items should be removed. Either a reliable source exists, or it doesn't. If it does, the item belongs. If not, it stays out. Without enforcement of that requirement, this list will continue to be an embarrassment to Wikipedia. --Elliskev 20:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we at least confine this to UFO sightings?

There seem to be a number of things in the list that are UFOlogist reinterpretations of events that were not seen as aerial phenomena at the time. For example, attributing the Eiffel Tower damage to a putative UFO surely doesn't qualify as a sighting, since nothing was seen. I also don't see how The Miracle of the Sun qualifies. Mangoe (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

All the pre-20th century ones need to come out. Itsmejudith (talk)
I, of course, agree. Is three people a quorum? ScienceApologist (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. JMK (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Took them out. Now going to shorten the long entries. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Doubts about my last edit

Hi, I just removed the Wikinews material, which seems reasonable to me. I also removed all items with "citation needed," but now I doubt this action since some of them had a Wikipedia article. But I looked at some of the articles, and it seems that many of them are quite unsatisfactory and could well be deleted if pressed, so I'm not sure whether or not to undo my edit or not. On one hand, I could search through every single one that had "citation needed" and figure out whether the incidents are worth mentioning or not, or we could have anyone who wants an item reintroduced make the case by including a legitimate reference. If I made a big mistake, please just undo it, but in any case it seems that the issue needs to be addressed. Any opinions on the problem? Chedorlaomer (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please add back the blue links which have sources in the body of the article (I've just added back one). As for the rest, the articles with missing sources should be tagged as unreferenced (or AfD'd) and links to them can be safely omitted from this list. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about going too far, I've put it all back now (except the Wikinews items). Just looking down the list, it is plain that many of the linked articles also are without proper substance (such as Hopeh Incident). In addition to removing these from the list, should deletion be proposed? Chedorlaomer (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
No need to apologise. It seems like there is a lot of work to do on a series of articles and it's useful that you've highlighted it. You could go back to the Fringe Theories Noticeboard to get some help. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Glitch in list

Recent entry only has a 1 in it. Powerzilla (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


Sources

I see that many of the sightings in the list need a source. I wanted to add some but don't know how to add reference. I will post them here and hopefully someone will add the sources to the article or explain how I can add them.

The first one is the Aurora case.

Here is an article in Time, and another from the Houston Chronicle

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,948461,00.html

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4587362.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarwan (talk • contribs) 15:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This should be OK for the Battle of Los Angeles

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/dec/17/local/me-1259

There is also the original LA times article some of which can be seen here

http://www.rense.com/ufo/battleofla.htm

Anarwan (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing to rense.com is not okay. But we can source to the LA Times directly if we can verify the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The Swedish Ghost Rockets are mentioned in the encyclopedia Science in the Early Twentieth Century

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mpiZRAiE0JwC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=swedish+ghost+rockets&source=web&ots=qbhoX9Z7y6&sig=m5LfBWHie-gKaxdKFOIPliUrcV8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result

Anarwan (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

For Roswell you might as well use this from CNN

http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/18/ufo.report/

Anarwan (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This has details of the Maury Island incident

http://seattlepi.com/local/312713_ufo23.html

Anarwan (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Kenneth Arnold sighting

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6268708.stm

Anarwan (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Green fireballs

http://www.csicop.org/klassfiles/SUN-39.html

Anarwan (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The Mantell incident

http://kynghistory.ky.gov/history/4qtr/addinfo/mantellthomas.htm

Anarwan (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The Gorman Dogfight is discussed here by Edward J. Ruppelt (director of project Grudge and member of Project Blue Book FWIW).

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17346/17346.txt

Anarwan (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Mariana UFO Incident

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/multimedia/ufo2/

Anarwan (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Lubbock Lights

http://science.howstuffworks.com/ufo-classification.htm

Anarwan (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that this site is really that good for reporting a sighting. Can you find another? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Two more for Lubbock Lights (it is very famous but quite old)

http://www.kcbd.com/global/story.asp?s=7738129

http://www.texasescapes.com/ClayCoppedge/Lubbock-Lights-and-UFOs.htm

Anarwan (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

1952 Washington D.C. UFO incident

http://science.howstuffworks.com/ufo-government5.htm

Anarwan (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

As above, I think howstuffworks.com shouldn't be used here. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Washington 1952 wave

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20020727&slug=ufos27

Anarwan (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The Carson Sink incident was investigated as part of Blue Book. Details are found in Ruppelt's book here

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17346/17346.txt

Anarwan (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Flatwoods monster

http://www.bcn-news.com/featured-stories.html

http://www.register-herald.com/local/local_story_139225400.html

Anarwan (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Felix Moncla from the Wisconsin State Journal

http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/column/310922

Anarwan (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Kelly-Hopkinsville encounter

http://www.csicop.org/si/2006-06/i-files.html

Antonio Villas Boas

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19970622/ai_n14100764/pg_2

Levelland case

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,837169-4,00.html

Anarwan (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Betty and Barney Hill

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,828455,00.html

Lonnie Zamora

http://www.dchieftain.com/news/81987-07-30-08.html

Exeter incident

http://www.seacoastnh.com/Famous-People/Link-Free-or-Die/Norman-Muscarello-Recalls-His-UFO-Incident-at-Exeter/

Kecksburg

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21494221/

Anarwan (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Falcon Lake

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ufo/002029-1300.01-e.html

Cussac

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032202132.html

Shag Harbour

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ufo/002029-1500.01-e.html

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ufo/002029-1501-e.html

Schirmer abduction

http://www.ncas.org/condon/text/case42.htm

Jimmy Carter ufo

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=50787

Anarwan (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

typo

The second word "of" should be "or" in the sentence about the Russia explosion. The search function doesn't work for the text, so I can't find it.

It should be fixed now. Thanks for the feedback, Chedorlaomer (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Lengthy notes

Several of the lengthy notes were shortened. The table was also split into 20th / 21st centuries for ease of use. It is clear that many of the 21st century records don't belong on this page, will never acquire articles, and must be moved to the respective country sightings. JMK (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Source

I have been adding sources for some time now. I think I've got about half way there, and it's not really the kind of thing I want to go through again (even tho I've found out a lot of interesting stuff about UFOs along the way). If anyone wants to add a new sighting and doesn't have a good source, please enter the details you have here (on the talk page) and if a source can be found it will be added, but if not it will not. I'm probably going to start removing some of the cases that don't have sources pretty soon, and would appreciate no more being added. Any help sourcing the remaining cases currently in the article would be greatly appreciated. Anarwan (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Terrible Mess

This article is an unsourced mess. It needs a cleanup. Knowitall (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

i think Wikipedia got dipped on the last three editations on sightings manly due because the three Youtube videos are from past events and deal with fake evidence69.122.156.68 (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone bothered to actually look at the pages these links go to? Just going off what other Wiki editors have already commented on as major problems, all of the following links go to UFO pages with the words "this article contains no citations" in one form or another at the top (never mind the ones that state the neutrality of the article is in question): José Bonilla Observation, Tunguska event, Hopeh Incident, Maury Island incident, Green fireballs, Carson Sink UFO incident, Kelly–Hopkinsville encounter, Milton Torres 1957 UFO Encounter, The Mothman Prophecies, Westall UFO, Close encounter of Cussac, Allagash Abductions, Colares UFO flap, Kaikoura lights, Japan Air Lines flight 1628 incident, Belgian UFO wave, Tinley Park Lights. That doesn't even take into consideration external links to sources that actually contradict what is being claimed here. For example, your 2007-02-02 entry for Islington goes to an outside article that says, "yes, something was seen but it's now identified," which means it's not a UFO. It's obvious from reading these comments in the discussion page that many people are very passionate about UFOs but I feel like I'm reading the The National Enquirer with paper-thin evidence being used as "reliable sources" here, not Wiki. Himeyuri (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right. There's a lot of rubbish here. Links to other Wikipedia articles are not good enough. My view on articles like this is that if you find a part of the article that has no external reference, it should be deleted on the spot. Don't even bother posting here about it. Just go for it. It can only help the article. HiLo48 (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

2009-01-29 Sightings

Are there any documentation of these except the video? The video has an advertisement all over it. The edit has no city. Looks like a disguised advert to me. Sevcsik (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Aurora UFO

The sources for the Aurora sighting make it plain that the story comes from a single source--a newspaper stringer--and that it's widely believed to be a hoax. I'm noting this in the article. --TS 17:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's also widely thought to be genuine - shall we note that too.Anarwan (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
If you have a reliable source, we can note that many people believe to be genuine. Both sources we have now treat it as a tall story and cite locals who say that's what it is. --TS
The sources don't use the word "hoax", and they don't support the contention that it is widely believed to be a hoax. They cite one person who seems to claim it is a hoax but they also talk about people who believe it including all the tourists who come to see the site of the supposed alien crash. Anarwan (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
That isn't a serious argument. You cannot pit ignorant tourists against locals who are aware of the history.
You also falsely claim that "they cite one perosn who seems to claim it is a hoax". In fact, the TIME article says "It was generally ridiculed at the time, and most citizens of Aurora still scoff", and the Houston Chronicle quotes the executive director of the Aurora Historical Society pointing to a number of holes in the story. The journalist emerges with the statement "I'm not convinced anyone in Aurora actually believes in the alien.". --TS 21:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Scoffing doesn't mean they think it's a HOAX. Ridiculing doesn't mean the think it's a HOAX. Not believing doesn't mean they think it's a HOAX. Are you being serious here?Anarwan (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Close Encounter missclassifications.

It should be noted that a few of the entries cited in the UFO sightings are stated to be at least CE1 category. Please recheck the entries and categorize them as Daylight Disc, Night Lights or Radar-Visuals as requ'd. This last category is the category the Kaikoura Lights fall into as in no time did the lights come near to the witnesses. This is imperative so as to maintain the integrity of the reported sightings and so that they don't fall foul of sensationalism. Distantly viewed UFOs are in no way less compelling than close encounters. Indeed, the Kaikoura Lights remain, to this day, one of the most impressive and highly scrutinized sightings. But to refer to it as a Close Encounter is missleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.188.21 (talk) 09:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Portugal sighting Oct 13 1917

I and millions of people around the world believe that what made the sun dance in Fatima in 1917 was Our Lady. I am aware that there are others who claim that it was a UFO sighting. This is an atack against catholics and therefore is not imparcial as a Wikipedia page should be. I demand that the Fatima sighting is removed from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.203.33 (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be removed because, as you said, some believe that it was a UFO, so it should stay in here. Nohomers48 (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Titling of page

I was just thinking on the subject and think that this page should actually be "List of Alien encounters", or some such title, as not all of them are UFO-related (such as the recent sighting in Panama). Any thoughts? StewieK (talk) 05:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be called "List of major UFO sightings" as it does not have every UFO sighting claimed or reported in it. Nohomers48 (talk) 06:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

U stands for unidentified. If they knew for certain that these were alien encounters they wouldn't be unidentified the would be identified. Few people including me consider the evedence for many if any to be conclusively alien encounters. Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

moscow ufo december 19, 2009

anyone else see this story? http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpps/news/dpgo-ufo-flies-over-russias-kremlin-lwf-20091218_5165027 may be worthy of addition to the page MACKDIESEL5 (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

disregard, they updated the story and its probably fake, sorry for the confusion. MACKDIESEL5 (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to remove ALL unreferenced (claimed) sightings

The list contains a lot of claimed sightings without references. Normal Wikipedia rules would ask that such material be removed, but these rules are often overlooked for obvious, common knowledge material. This stuff, however, is quite the opposite of common knowledge. Nothing should appear without at least one reliable reference.

I propose removing every such entry.

If we don't do that, some mischievous editor (such as myself) could simply start adding totally fictitious entries with impunity. (I think I just saw a strange light outside....) Do we really want that? (Maybe it has already happened.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Mass media and the governments haven't been trying to do a good job scrutinizing these therefore it is tough to know what is a reliable source or not. there is a citation needed process in place and many of them have been added including some to the most famous sightings like the Belgium Wave and Colares Island. An effort could be made to find sources for these or the less known ones. I don't think anyone should rush into it. The sincere way to handle it should be to do an internet search for each one before proposing that they be deleted. There is already to much censorship and foolishness surrounding this subject on both sides. Finding the truth is slow and tedious; simply deleting things your not familiar with won't help that. Besides when these things are deleted it only encourages some fringe people to believe them even more. Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a citation needed process in place, but it's not having much success. In three days since my (fairly dramatic) proposal, only one reference has been added. I'm concerned that the article does not currently meet Wikipedia standards and, if the current process is left to run without intervention, it looks like it will be years before it does. I'd like to "rush" just a little bit more than that. Also, I don't regard removing material that doesn't meet Wikipedia standards as censorship. The same standards are applied to every topic. As for "fringe people" believing this stuff even more, I doubt if Wikipedia's article will influence them either way. HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Make that make that three references for 2 incidents. I found one more just be looking on the related article I'm sure many more can be found this way if you try. If you’re concerned about it just do some of the work. The most effective way to find out the truth about any given subject is to organize the information as well as possible so that you can narrow it down. Unconfirmed claims or deletions are not the way to find out what is true this only confuses the issue and prevents people from understanding the subject. Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If it was my job to find a reliable source for each item, or delete it in the absence of one, there would be very few items in the list. That would be based on my view of what makes a reliable source in a subject area like this. I would delete any reference from a UFO "enthusiast" journal or similar and its associated item. I really don't think those who believe in all this stuff would want that. If those with an interest in UFO sightings really want this very large list to remain, it's their job to find decent references from quality sources, not mine. HiLo48 (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I added another two links and Nohomers corrected the one which I previously transferred. I suggest if you do something that it should be based on research not a desire to delete anything you doubt. This subject is confusing enough as it is it doesn't need more attempts to delete things or add things without research. My first edit was premature since the source was no longer available. The way Nohomers addressed it is correct. If you want to check facts feel fr5ee to Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As Hilo stated, it's not his job to find reliable sources it's your job. I am also concerned with the quality of this article and its references, when I find the time I'm going to go through it. BrendanFrye (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I went through and deleted the "citation needed" sections. All were from September 2008 or April 2009. Also did some random cleanup. Feel free to add anything back in if you find a source. Next I'll go through the sources that we have to see if they match the text or are considered reliable. BrendanFrye (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted everything you did and added a few sources. Without trying hard I found sources most of which were already listed on the linked wikipedia article and added them. This is a list not a regular article. In many cases lists provide links to articles that have sources on them. It isn't hard to find them if you try. If you’re going to start deleting things when there are sources in the related article it is or should be your job to at least make a quick check. This may not be an easy subject but that shouldn't mean that anyone can just start deleting things when ever they feel like it without even trying to confirm anything. If you want to contribute to wikipedia I sujest you do the research instead of deleting thing you disagree with. Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The deletions were NOT done "when ever they feel like it". They were done after considerable discussion and considerable time was given for those who wanted the content to remain to find references. Some of the reports read like pure fiction, and were of very poor quality. It is NOT the job of people expressing concern about the quality and being at least a little sceptical about some of the reports to go and fix them. They should never have been added in the form they were. It is that behaviour of the "fans" of UFOs that makes it "not an easy subject". From my perspective, with Wikipedia trying to be a source of referenced knowledge, the garbage that makes up a huge proportion of UFO reports should never be part of Wikipedia.
You have every right to now add properly referenced material to the article, and other editors have every right to remove unreferenced material. It's the only way for a "not...easy" subject like this to retain any credibility at all. If you have put back unreferenced items, I see no reason they should stay. It does damage to the article and the subject. If you later find credible references, they can be added again. HiLo48 (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
(To Zachery, not hilo) This article has been tagged for references since early 2008. Everything I removed was completely unsourced. Plus, I did a lot of formatting work that you reverted. If you care about the quality of this article you would add things with sources, not do a complete revert of all of my work. The job of fixing the sources is up to the person who wants to keep them in the article. If I thought that material would get referenced in a timely manner I would have left it in. Hilo is completely right. Zachery, just add sources to individual items and put them back in, it's all kept in the history. BrendanFrye (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste any more time arguing with you. You have criticized me for not sorting through your work and at the same time you have declined to keep the sources I provided. You have declined to do any sincere work of your own but this isn't uncommon on this subject. Your right the history is being preserved so that includes censorship. there is no doubt that this subject needs fact checking but deleting things without doing the fact checking is no better than putting more in. Zacherystaylor (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You are the one that has declined to do any sincere work, whereas I have done work on the article cleaning it up, formatting, checking links, etc. If you want that material back in the article than go ahead and find sources and put it back in. If not, stop coming here and complaining about other people editing the article. Stop whinging about "censorship" when the issue is OBVIOUSLY the sourcing or lack thereof. BrendanFrye (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Zacherystaylor - do try to see this from the perspective of others. If I wrote a long article on something else you're interested in, but cited no references when maybe 20 were needed, thereby breaking Wikipedia's rules, would it be YOUR job to find the references? HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wales UFO Sightings

Browsing around after watching the British UFOs tv programme, I was struck by a feature of the original article. The article has a citation for the Air Support Unit and I wondered what the Metropolitan Police was doing in Wales? Then I tracked the aircraft concerned, on Google, to a Aerospatiale AS355F2 at one time used by South & East Wales Police Air Support Unit. A picture of the aircraft can be found at the http://www.ukemergencyaviation.co.uk/G-SEWP.htm site page. Perhaps the original contributor could clarify the connection to the Metropolitan Police? 86.16.134.133 (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup tag re-added. This article is still messy

An editor removed the multiple tags for improving this article, stating that it has been improved considerably. While I agree with that, I would suggest that a lot of the language still needs to be improved.

For example, too many of the cases are written up in the style of "X saw...." when, in fact, all we really know is that "there is a report that X claimed to have seen...." There is a considerable difference. The latter form is the way most cases should be reported.

HiLo48 (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Maracaibo Incidence

This incidence is very remarkable. First, the source is a scientific newspaper, second, the effects the object caused can be today explained easily as radiation desease.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonk43 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 8 April 2010

Adhara Observatory UFO Lunar Transit

The Adhara Observatory UFO Lunar Transit should not miss in the list for the following reason

  1. Observation was made at a professional observatory
  2. UFO appeared in unconventional manner ( as transit)
  3. Good example for a transit of an unknown object in front of the moon.
  4. Photographs and multiple witnesses—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonk43 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 8 April 2010

Tranits of UFOs

There are several reports of transits from unknown objects in front of sun and moon. In he 19th century one claimed in case of transits in front of the sun, it was the intramercuriel planet Vulcan, which does not exist. As none of these objects was ever identified, they are UFOs!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonk43 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 8 April 2010

Zonk43 - those unsigned posts above appear to be yours. Please sign your posts by putting four tildes at the end. A tilde is the ~ character, usually near the top left corner of your keyboard. HiLo48 (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Though it is not appropriate to write about the UFO sighting here, but i wanted to let people know that on 19 September in Gurgaon, lot of girls in our PG (including me), saw more than 15 elliptical objects (I think most of the time it was behind the clouds), whiter in center and and the color became hazy as one moves away from center. They were moving relatively fast, and in some irregular pattern but if one would want to fit a line , then it was kind of positively sloped with a curve towards horizontal axis. This activity continued for atleast more than 2 hours, they gradually decreased in numbers and then after some time all were no where to be found. This is the first time i saw such kind of activity. I asked many engineers, if this is possible that this kind of technology is there but nothing like that was explainable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.12.0.211 (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Photographs at Zacatecas Observatory

Can someone please find out these photographs and bring them to Wikipedia. Would be great to have the oldest UFO pictures in Wikipedia Commons!

Before 2000/After 2000

Why does this article distinguish pre- and post-year 2000 sighting events? The introductory paragraph doesn't explain, and the fact that in comparison there is only one more-than-first encounter sighting in the post-2000 category strongly suggests there is some distinction here that I'm completely oblivious to as a non-UFO enthusiast.--65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am guessing that is an arbitrary breakpoint at the beginning of the millenium in order to split the data into two tables as opposed to one large table. Obankston (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Kind of Close Encounter

What does "Kind of Close Encounter" mean? In which categories is it splitted? Ne discere cessa! (German User) 14:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The types of close encounters are described in Ufology, section Hynek system. Obankston (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Passoria photo

The lead photo in UFO article is an image of a supposed UFO taken in Passoria, New Jersey. Why isn't this sighting included in this list? Gargamel38 (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Dome of the Rock UFO

I took the liberty of adding this particular event of interest to the list, as well as a couple of news references (CBS and The Sun) on it. New developments are emerging on it, so things may change in the coming days. This incident is quite fascinating because so many people caught it on camera, from different perspectives no less. All the videos, particularly the last one shot by American tourists, are very clear, as well. 65.255.147.8 (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I added Jaime Maussan's address the 2011 International UFO Congress in which he presented three videos as material evidence that a UFO hovered over the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount. I made some changes to the original presentation of the event. For instance the time of the event was just before 1 AM on Jan. 28, 2011 local Jerusalem time. The event lasted 23 seconds according to Mr. Maussan. By the way, the fourth video was proven to be a forgery which I could post the link to if it is necessary. Apparently the fourth video was made using a computer screen as a background in order to be sold for profit once at least two of the evidential videos had already become known.Stealthman5758 (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

All 4 videos are hoaxes. [2] [3] Do we include video-edited hoaxes in this list?? I think the Dome of the Rock entry should be removed. -- Ϫ 13:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it must be removed. It's no longer Unidentified. HiLo48 (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

For Heaven's sake what is wrong with three of the four videos? How have they been proven to be hoaxes? Eligael came forward with his video. He obviously is not in it for the money. The second video was made by the guy holding the cell phone camera in the first video. The third video from a second angle was made by four high school students who were in Jerusalem just before 1 am on Jan. 28th. What is fraudulant about any of these three videos? This sighting should not have been removed. Who did that? Please put the sighting back up. You have no right to remove it. One can see the reflection off the Dome of the Rock in the third video precisely because the four students were closer to the scene than the two videos from the south which were taken from the Armon HaNatziv promenade. There is the same flash of light as in the other two videos. To expect more observers at 1 am is ridiculous. Contrary to what you may know about Jerusalem, the City goes to sleep around 11pm. There are very few people around the Temple Mt. after that time. Most Muslim pilgrims are asleep in their beds, and most Jewish people praying at the Western Wall are also sleeping. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is in the Western half of the Old City, and the Temple Mt. cannot be seen from there. The fact that there are three videos at about 1am from two different perspectives is proof enough to make it an official UFO sighting. Stealthman5758 (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the meaning of the 'kind of close encounter' heading in the table?

What is the meaning of the 'kind of encounter' heading within the table on this page; what do the numbers in the table represent in relation to the heading also?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattsafc123 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty well explained in the article Close encounter HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The types of close encounters are described in Ufology, section Hynek system. Obankston (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sheffield S-Shaped craft.

Ok, it says: "A spinning S-shaped black flying object was spotted in broad daylight in Sheffield, and was caught on camera and uploaded to YouTube. A similar white sphere can be seen, later confirmed to be an aircraft." Now, it strikes me, the only confirmation shown that the white sphere is an aircraft I can find is the opinion of one youtube user from a month ago, and to be honest, I disagree. My opinion is that it is a white speck on the window the black S-shaped object was seen though, which only appears to be moving because the camera is panning the other way. I am not saying I'm necessarily right, I'm just saying that the opinion of one youtube user does not necessarily equal fact; there is still some uncertainty on the identification of the white speck. It has not been confirmed, but it is speculated to be.

I suggest the description should read: "A black, S-shaped object was spotted spinning as it flew in broad daylight in Sheffield, caught on camera and uploaded to YouTube. In addition, a similar white sphere can be seen, which may be an aircraft, or a mark on the window which the object was filmed through."

Or perhaps "In addition, a similar white sphere can be seen, perhaps a speck on the window was filmed though, or an aircraft heading in the opposite direction of the S-shaped object."

Something to that effect. JimmytheJ (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Japan

A google search for 'ufo sightings in japan' gets about 500,000 results, and sightings around the recent tsunami seem to be a hot internet topic, albeit on fringe websites. Are there sightings from reliable sources?andycjp (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem

Should the light above Jerusalem be included? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTQVtyh4XkI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.95.172 (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem to be an important UFO event, and one that could be added to the list before the article has been written. Generally however, users are adding sightings and events, either non-notable or unlikely to ever achieve article status, which should be discouraged. JMK (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

UFO SIGHTED AROUND LOKTAK LAKE IN MANIPUR

19th June 2011/Moirang, Bishnupur, Manipur, India

In a astounding incident, a fish farmer in Manipur experienced loss of consciousness for over 18 hours after he claimed he was hit by shockwave transmitted from an unidentified flying object. The fish farmer was trying out his in-built video camera on his brand new Chinese made mobile phone when he accidentally filmed the UFO hovering over his fish farm in Bishnupur district.

This is the startling footage of an unidentified flying object, filmed by a fish farmer in Manipur. After filming for 19 seconds, 32 years Kumam Koiremba experienced loss of consciousness. According to his family, he was in a semi-unconscious state of over 18 hours after he sighted the UFO in his fish farm, located at Ngangkha lawai, Moirang near loktak lake. Doctor’s diagnosis read ‘loss of consciousness, showing signs of weakness with non-responsive motor response.’ Puzzled at his claim of being hit by a UFO shockwave, he was discharge after placing him under few hours of observation. However Kumam Koiremba still complains of weakness and exhaustion after his ‘changed encounter’ with the UFO.

Reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH9i_NYdiPY

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150233901599929&comments

http://istvimphal.com/?p=1355 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bikramjitmeitei (talk • contribs) 18:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

aliens

well I currently had watched the movie the 4th Kind and thought that Aliens did not excisit, until one night while I was sitting on my front porch I happened to look up and see 8 floating objects in the sky. So I did some research and looked online at pictures of "ufo" sightings in the United States and they looked like the same thing I had seen the night before. Now I know for sure that I can not be the only one who has seen this and that im not going crazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.192.72 (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a talk page on how to improve an article. Please refrain from putting comments that do not discuss on how to improve it. Informed Person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informed Person (talk • contribs) 17:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

UFO Crash in Saudi Arabia 2003

in June 2003 a flying object that appeared to be a flying saucer crashed in a remote small village in Saudi Arabia called Arraith. It caused massive shockwaves that scared people and cattle. some experts believed it was part of a spyplane. The governor of the village said “The object is not big, but it scares people". The next day the Saudi Prince who governs the region denied the incident and said it was just a balloon.

http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=27174&d=9&m=6&y=2003&pix=kingdom.jpg&category=Kingdom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.91.123.244 (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

List incomplete

but where is the list of UFO sightings before 19th Century? ro:Listă de contacte cu OZN-uri înainte de anii 1900 (List of UFO sightings before 1900s) (Terraflorin (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)).

They were all removed back in 2008. Lights in the sky in the middle ages were not interpreted as flying objects back then. Mangoe (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I've begun adding some early reports. I've restricted myself to cases that have been listed by NASA astrophysicist Richard Stothers. Stothers published a paper "Unidentified Flying Objects in Classical Antiquity" in the Classical Journal in 2007 which looked for reports that could be considered UFOs using Hynek's classification system. Because he uses Hynek's system, the reports are ready to fit into this list. I'm not a heavy wikipedia user these days so hopefully I'll get the syntax right. Clotten (talk) 07:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I've had to revert this as a probable copyright violation - sections are unattributed copy-paste of Stothers paper. As for whether a properly-written version of the material is merited, I have my doubts per Mangoe's comments above. In any case, regarding the 'pithoi' Stothers writes "we cannot rule out the fall of a bolide", which suggests that 'unidentified' might be stretching things, the 'angel hair' is not actually reported as 'flying', but merely as assumed to have fallen from the sky (and "perhaps" picked up by Cassius Dio), and as far as events supposed to have occurred on the Via Campana , I suspect that "early Christian hagiographical literature" might be seen as a questionable source. More to the point though, Stothers is not himself claiming that these sightings were necessarily of 'UFOs' at all - he concludes his paper thus:
Whether one prefers to think in terms of universal recurrent visions from the collective unconscious, misperceptions of ordinary objects, unusual atmospheric effects, unknown physical phenomena or extraterrestrial visitations, what we today would call UFOs possess an intrinsic interest that has transcended the passage of time and the increase of human knowledge.
Frankly, I think that it does a disservice to Stothers to use his paper as a source for 'examples of UFOs in antiquity'. His approach is much more equivocal, and puts the 'sightings' into a historical context where "prodigies" and "mass hallucination" are possible factors. He doesn't state that these were UFOs, so neither should we. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback AndyTheGrump. I've reworded the entires so they're no longer direct quotes, to avoid any possible copyright issues. I don't understand your allegation that citing these cases does a "disservice" to Stothers. Stothers' article is titled "Unidentified Flying Objects in Classical Antiquity". The Hynek classifications are Stothers', not mine. He is quite specifically offering these cases as "UFOs". He even refers to the patterns in what he cautiously terms "the ancient UFO phenomenon". I'm usure what you mean when you say "He doesn't state that these 'were' UFOs, so neither should we." As you quoted, he says these reports are "what we would call UFOs". Clotten (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I disagree. Stothers makes clear that there are multiple possible explanations for the phenomena he documents. He isn't asserting that they were 'UFOs' (whatever 'UFO' means) - he is describing "ancient reports of what might today be called unidentified flying objects". Though as far as I can tell Stothers isn't a historian by profession (correct me if I'm wrong), he is using entirely correct academic approach here, and avoiding anachronistic characterisations of historical phenomena in modern terms. He describes events (of varying historical credibility), and suggests, perfectly reasonably, that seen through modern eyes some might possibly be seen as 'UFOs'. That is all he is saying. He isn't claiming that they were, and the original witnesses certainly weren't making such claims either. While this is an interesting subject, it doesn't belong in a 'List of alleged UFO sightings' because nobody has claimed to have seen a UFO. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Stothers was an astrophysicist at NASA. You can check out his publications here. Note that he published many articles reconstructing astronomical or geological events from historical reports. For example: "The case for an eruption of Vesuvius in 217 BC" (2002, Ancient Hist. Bull), "Ancient and modern earthquake lights in Northwestern Turkey" (2004, Seismol. Res. Lett), " Dark lunar eclipses in classical antiquity" (1986, Brit. Astron. Assoc. J.). So insofar as being a historian means you publish articles about history in historical journals, yes, he was a historian as well. I still don't understand what you mean when you put "were" in scare quotes. Stothers categorizes the UFO sightings according to Hynek's scale. I take it since you are clearly interested in this page that you are aware of J. Allen Hynek's classification system for UFO reports. If Stothers didn't think these "were" UFO reports, why did he apply Hynek's UFO scale? I of course agree that Stothers discusses possible explanations for the sightings he lists. But remember, he is only presenting the cases that he cannot positively identify (he describes his process at the onset of the paper). A possible explanation is not the same as an accepted explanation. And Stothers' whole point is that there seems to be historical continuity to what we now call the UFO phenomenon. His paper is agnostic as to the true nature of that phenomenon, he merely points out the similarities in the reports.Clotten (talk) 10:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_reported_UFO_sightings/Archive_5&oldid=1159839628"