Talk:McMinnville UFO photographs

Post the Photos?
Given that the article concerns photographs, I'm wondering if someone who knows how could post one of the photos in the article - it would enhance the article, IMO. I believe that the photos are in the public domain and thus can be posted. Just a thought.
 * Agreed. I mean, they're sort of like the Dewey Defeats Truman photo at this point. They (or at least one of them) needs to be featured in the article. --98.232.181.201 (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * At the very least, could someone find a link to decent scans of the photos? The photos on the sites in the External Links section are pixel city. MrBook (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Practical Joke
I'm not sure if it should be included... there seems to be a practical joke about this incident. People formed a Firefox logo in a field just outside of McMinnville. It is visible on Google Earth or Google Maps on this location: 45° 7'25.87"N 123° 6'48.97"W You can view it by clicking on this Google Maps link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rediretihw (talk • contribs) 19:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hehe, neat. Not sure how it's related to this incident though, besides the fact that it's in the same town.


 * btw, if you zoom in closer, just below the crop circle there's a 'FX?' spelled out with a plane, some cars, and a group of people... what I wanna know is.. how did they know when the satellite would be passing overhead?? -- &oelig; &trade; 10:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation Needed?
I doubt this article's claims that "To many skeptics, however, the photos are likely hoaxes and/or fakes." as well as the related statement in the first paragraph. This sounds like a dubious statement intended to dismiss the claims of skeptics without actually acknowledging them. I think the article may benefit from a source skeptical of the incident. This article feels less than neutral at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.9.18 (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

What specific reason (beyond vague claims such as "sounds like") is there to doubt the statement you are referring to? It certainly sounds neutral enough, and in no way dismisses the skeptic's claims regarding the incident. The article itself DOES have several sources that are skeptical of the incident, including an extensive discussion of Philip Klass and Robert Shaeffer's debunking of the case, as well as a discussion of IPACO's debunking, and it also provides links to both debunking articles. As such, I don't see how the article can be accused of not "actually acknowledging" the claims of skeptics. The skeptic viewpoint is indeed discussed quite thoroughly. Unless the article is rewritten to openly favor the debunking point of view (which would of course end its neutrality), I don't think the article is biased for either side. 2602:304:691E:5A29:9906:D558:A559:30B8 (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The article has undergone significant edits recently to bring it more in line with Wikipedia policy. Two major skeptical sources on the claimed incident, including Robert Sheaffer's website The Debunker's Domain and IPACO's analysis website, are now cited numerous times, and the hoax explanation is given prominent, detailed coverage. The Ufologist information has been confined to a single section at the bottom of the article and is clearly labeled as such. Additionally, any pro-fringe wording in the body of the article has been replaced with more neutral, encyclopedia-appropriate wording. Also, other reliable sources, including The Oregonian newspaper and The Condon Report, are cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * ...Yeeeah. Neither the late Klass nor Shaeffer (or anyone else associated with CSI) has ever let any inconvenient facts or evidence get in the way of a good debunking. I'd like to know where the suspension thread was placed on a similar object photographed IN FLIGHT by a French Armee d' la Air pilot near Rouen in 1954. Must have been from a USAF crash dummy dropped from a weather balloon.[User:Tonybaldacci|Tonybaldacci]] (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence that photo was even taken in France. It looks like the McMinnville photo with a slight difference in quality. Fake. 2603:6081:6D01:E3:FC57:6C1F:D45A:14E3 (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit Warring
Stop edit warring and removing sourced content without reasons. Discuss the differences here. Bali88 (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has clear rules regarding article neutrality, POV, and fringe sources. To use the word "proved" regarding the statements of a UFO "believer" or advocate such as Brad Sparks, instead of the more neutral words "asserted" and "argued" is, I should think, a clear violation of those policies. To use the word "proved" regarding Sparks claims (which, after all, are only his claims) would clearly take the side of a ufologist over that of a skeptic, instead of a neutral stance. I believe that Sparks comments should be included in the article, but presented in a fashion that complies with Wiki standards. That's my position in regarding word usage in the article. Populism (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like the page is protected now! Woohoo! Bali88 (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that "proved" is not the best, WP:SAY specifically advises against "asserted". I'd go for "stated" and "argued", respectively. Anon 126  (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 06:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll adjust the wording accordingly. Populism (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

weasel words from another world
In the first paragraph you're trying to say something, but the weasel words render it completely nonsensical.

"...are often considered to be among the most famous photographs ever taken of a UFO." You mean sometimes these photos are not considered to be among the most famous? By whom? That's absurd...famous is famous, and these are extremely famous, maybe even the most famous, however you'd measure that.

"Most UFO skeptics believe that the photos are a hoax..." In other words, there are a few UFO skeptics who don't believe they are a hoax. What then? OK, maybe weather or other natural phenomenon, although they hardly look like it. You can't mean that there are UFO skeptics who think they're real. Well, maybe you do because it sure sounds like it. 74.104.189.176 (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Trent1 600dpi.jpg (discussion)
 * Trent2 UFOA 600dpi.jpg (discussion)