Jump to content

Talk:Black triangle (UFO)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

St.Petersburg sightings

In the introduction of the article, it's commented that there were a mass sighting over St.Petersburg in 1997. Why is there no other references, nor any subsection under 'reported sightings' about this incident?

Well, last I checked, there was more info about the St. Petersburg sighting at the Whyfiles site, (See external links). They've reorganized their website since my last visit, so you'll have to dig around for it. Unfortunately, the authors of the Whyfiles are very stingy about keeping any and all reports they've compiled exclusive to their website. Attempts to use their research for this Wiki article have caused them to protest and threaten legal action in the past, even if its paraphrased and referenced back to them. I tried to compromise with them when I put this article together, but they wanted everything taken down and afterward ignored my requests. I avoid them now, but they seem to have the only detailed info regarding the Russian sighting (if it's true or not), and don't want it repeated in detail here. SkeezerPumba 01:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
If it really was a mass sighting, there must be lots of other references than the whyfiles. While googling, I find references to the St. Petersburg Times, February 2, 1997. Unfortunately, they don't have that old editions publically available at www.sptimes.ru :-(

Saw a black triangle URBANA CHAMPAIGN ILLINOIS 61802 Read please:

A friend of mine and I were hanging out in the Urbana, IL area by Mchenry at around 10:00- 11:30 PM Thursday November 23rd 2006 at night and saw a black triangle object it looked more like a diamond with a tail coming out of one of the corners...Completly silent the lights were on each angle and it they were a red orange dim color. Again NO sound what so ever and it was cruising through the sky fairly quickly it took 10-15 seconds for us to see it and it dissapear..it sort of cloaked in and cloaked out

semiblocked@gmail.com -- email me if you have seen one somehwere in my area or at that time

Call MUFON. Cyberia23 07:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars

In the original Star Wars Trilogy the Imperial Star Destroyers resemble Black Triangles69.148.16.43 21:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Bertman

They'd be "white" triangles. Cyberia23 22:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV problems?

I added the NPOV tag. My problem with this article is that it seems to give far too much weight to the conspiracy theory and UFO stuff, both of which are, after all, basically fringe opinions, and I assume even more so among widely ACKNOWLEDGED experts in relevant fields, like aerospace engineers, astophysicists, psychologists, etc. Obviously a majority of UFOlogists (or whatever they're called) think they're on to something, otherwise they wouldn't be spending time studying them. The "other explanations" section seems especially biased. The "for some reason" seems like weasel words (unnecessarily editorializing about unlikeliness), as well as the "opens the door to almost any sort of speculation," as if the possiblity that people are mistaken is so bizarre that if that's possible, then ANYTHING is possible.

Also, what about this: "...an intense magnetic field that negates Earth's gravitational forces on the mass of the vehicle by 89%..." Even though it's not reported as fact but as what somebody was saying, should it really go without comment that this has absolutely nothing to do with real physics? Magnetic fields have nothing to do with gravity.

Anyway, I guess I'll do a little editing along these lines myself (trying not to go too far in the other direction), but I think the whole article could use a look, which is why I nominated it.Mycroft7 10:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There, I made some changes, hopefully towards a more neutral tone and with more appropriate weight given to more skeptical views. I also changed the opening wording to make it clear that it is an article about the phenomenon of all these similar SIGHTINGS and not the actual AIRCRAFT, which may or may not even exist. I suppose it's obvious that I have a personal bias of finding the whole thing extremely dubious, but I think I mostly succeeded in staying neutral in my edits (except where the POV is presented as such). If you disagree and make significant changes along those lines, please explain yourself here so maybe we can come to a consensus instead of engaging in an edit war.

Anyway, it still could use more attention and more thorough looking into various different (and sourced, ideally) explanations, including psychological ones, of which I have little experience and don't know where to research. (I suspect studies of mob behaviors might prove relevant and educational, but that's just a guess. ;-)) Also, a few things could REALLY use sources, like the theory about "stealth blimps." I called it a "sometimes-voiced theory" to be as vague and neutral as possible, but I think it would be much more encylopedic if we knew, say, whose theory it originally was, and where he got his wild ideas about blimps. Mycroft7 13:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Language of observers - running lights

Do many or most observers see running lights? I'm definitely not a UFO enthusiast but I think it's important to establish that distinction. Bumhoolery 09:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My husband and I saw a Black Triangle in the spring of 1983

My husband and I saw a Black Triangle in the spring of 1983. We were driving after midnight (around 2 a.m.) southbound on Missouri Highway 63. Midway between Columbia, MO and Jefferson City (around Ashland, MO), we saw what we first thought were an airplane's landing lights. (There was a very small airport nearby.) As we approached the lights, we saw the Black triangle. The triangle moved VERY slowly and almost seemed to hover at a very low altitude (200 -500 feet). It was a VERY large Isosceles triangle (two sides larger than the base). The triangle had a red globe in the center and was outlined with small light blue lights with brighter white lights on each corner of the triangle. It was very dark, so we could not see the detail of the body other than the lights. We drove under the Black Triangle as it crossed over the highway. The Black Triangle easily covered all 4 lanes of the highway and then some. We slowed down to less than 40 mph and rolled down the windows to get a better look and listen. (It would have been unsafe to come to a complete stop on the highway.) The Black Triangle made no sound at all. It also did not generate any wind below it. It was NOT a helicopter (it made no noise, was way too large, and moved very smoothly). It was NOT an airplane as it moved much too slowly and made no noise. The small landing strip nearby could not have accomodated an aircraft that large. After it crossed the highway, it was not visible to follow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.126.65.196 (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Investigated this

I had investigated this matter while getting a $60,000 RV fixed. Got a pix of a UFO. Caught it as it was flying over a used car lot. Problem is that it is one of those "lights", which is a UFO w/o observable structure. Martial Law 10:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Had to take the RV to Phoenix, AZ. Martial Law 10:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

B-2, thats my guess. if you got a picture of the aircraft it be better to understand, for now im sticking to the B-2 Tu-49 15:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Triangle on Google

Okay i saw the image for my self on Google maps and it loooks nothing like a radio tower. and if it is a radio Tower, theres no town or city in the area to service it and there is no shadow of the Aircraft. Now i saw a Trangle for my self and i have seen pictures of alot of Black triangles, that defintly looks like a black TriangleTu-49 15:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to be a party pooper, but shouldn't that be relatively easy to confirm one way or the other? I mean, there's either a tower there or there isn't. Rather pointless to speculate, no? Go look. Mycroft7 19:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I tried but no luck (i found some but I could not zoom as far as I could with google maps so I was unable to confirm this) ... but if anyone else can confirm it that would be great (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 20:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

here's an idea, how bought someone go to the site and confirm if a tower is there or notTu-49 18:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

what do u mean what site?? i mean actually go there, to the cordinates, and see if there is a tower there or notTu-49 00:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Shadow on 8:30 Position

What shadow? I see no shadow; and I'm not even sure where to look -- what is the 8:30 position? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.12.38.25 (talk • contribs)

okay if u wanted to state this you could have said it in the Triangle on Google thing i postedTu-49 14:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The 8:30 position refers to where 8:30 would be on a clock face. Yes, it's clearly visible, just not in the the thumbnail. Click on the picture and you'll see it. Mycroft7 21:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

i wouldn't use clearly as a right term to see on it, you have to see it closely to know its there

depends on where the shadow angle isTu-49 18:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Congressman Spots ONE of these UFOs

A US Congressman has spotted one of these things. He is Congressman Kusinich. 65.163.112.104 19:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't link to article on AOL

The end of the section on the Belgian Wave included the following:

(See, for example, this detailed summary, which also provides references to other sources.)

I had to remove it because its presence caused an automatic revert, due to a ban on links into members.aol.com. So I am putting the info here, in case anyone ever finds another source of that article to link to. (It looks like a pretty good article.) 208.58.71.231 (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a black triangle!

I know these things exist because i've seen one in the mid 1990's, just exactly what they are though I'm not so sure. But the one I saw was huge about the size of a two storey house, very low down in the sky, black and triangular shape and moved extremely slowly without any noise. I felt very calm the whole time I and one other person was witnessing it but would love to know exactly what they are! YourPTR! 17:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If it moved against the wind, call Gandalf right away! Opuscalgary 16:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it moved against the wind or even if there was any wind but it definitely moved under its own power. Gandalf? YourPTR! 15:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  • This is a Lord Of The Rings allusion. At one point in the first book, a "cloud" is spotted moving towards the heroes, but it is discovered to be a flock of fast-moving birds, as it is moving "against the wind." 65.248.164.214 (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw a "black triangle" UFO as well. I was living in Flagstaff, Arizona at the time, in 1997, around the time of the Phoenix Lights incident. As some of you know, Flagstaff is roughly 150 miles to the north-northeast of Phoenix. I was driving along in my car, next to a soccer field, on a cloudy night. I looked up and saw two sets of red, V-shaped light formations with a white light in the front of the "V", travelling slowly and silently through the underside of a cloud. The cloud obscured the rest of the craft(s). The craft had to have been flying low, yet made no sound. As someone knowledgable when it comes to aricraft, I tell you it was like no Cessna or Piper Cub I had ever seen. It was very large, and yet silent. I found this quite eerie, as did the two other men in the car with me. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with USAF stealth aircraft

I have been the priviledged witness of a demo flight from the US stealth bomber which happens to be a black triangle (it was at the paris air show in 1995 or 1997 don't remember the date). I can tell it makes no doubt that the view of this airplane can be interpretated as an ufo. When I saw it it was making a low overflight of the airport in glide (almost no sound, just a faint "propeller-like" sound).
I am not saying that all triangle sightings are stealth aircrafts, actually I personally believe that there are unknown objects in the skies, especially if you take into account all the many reports, videos and photographs of objects that couldn't possibly be aircrafts. But it's interesting to note that the stealth bomber is probably responsible for several of the mid-1990s triangle sightings. But it is also worthwile to note that this aircraft doesn't have any spotlights under it's belly and that it is highly unlikely that test flights would have been undertaken over very populated and urbanized areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.8.17.235 (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of talk pages

Please remember that the purpose of talk pages is to give an area for discussing the article and ways to improve it, not for discussing the subject of the article. Don't post purported sightings here, and so on; such discussions are subject to removal under the talk page guidelines. --Philosophus T 05:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

so wait, your saying that my post on here will be removed?? no im not being mean or any thing im just wonderingTu-49 18:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

They could be, if they continue, but I'm rather reluctant to remove older discussions. --Philosophus T 00:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
All of the attempts there are OR. In fact, the entire section is OR, and doesn't comply with A, so I've removed it. --Philosophus T 20:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

thats what YOU say Nima, however this guy believes other wise, which i don't have a problem with Tu-49 18:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the triangle UFO turns to a circle due to the UFO's immense speed in spinning it looks like a circle? Then once it slows down, it would be visible as a triangle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.222.63 (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I see them

I see these "black triangles" on a regular basis. During the summer and early fall, the prevailing wind is such that airplanes coming in for a landing at the local airport approach my apartment from the south, then turn to the east when they're on line with the runway. The three white lights are the wing and nose landing lights (when they're pointed right at you, they're insanely bright), and the central red light is the lower hazard-warning light. There's usually a temperature inversion that keeps the engine noise from reaching the ground, and those airplanes make an absurdly sharp turn to final -- if I hadn't seen them making that maneuver in daylight, I wouldn't believe it was possible. --67.185.172.158 04:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

okay i see two things that i'm confused about, 1 u cant be seeing them on a regular basis with out letting the media no, 2 if u are seeing the Black triangles, ever think they might be a B-2? cuz i know one video on youtube where a kid was paint balling and he saw and captured a video of a B-2 passing by, and the kid didn't know what it was. clear mistaken identy, next time if u see one, take a picture of it Tu-49 15:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

but on all cases yes i have seen one my self (though my dad said the first one was a plane) on two occasions. both were triangles and even through my bonoculars when i saw the first one i saw no window lights nor heard engins, but in all cases the black triangle is the most known UFO second to the Saucer Tu-49 18:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

His claim, Tu-49, is that they're not really black triangles, and that they are in fact aeroplanes. From what I can tell - and of course I could be wrong about this - what he's saying is that they are the most often seen because they're just planes on days with heavy wind - if you didn't know this: planes must adjust the route they take when landing, and have different routes for different weather. 70.179.185.98 (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Can someone please provide and check the sources for this information. It has no refferences at all. An article like this, that isn't believed most of the time, should have a refferences section and refference numbers to at least provide some proof of the events. Eye-witness testimonies would probably be best (and for something like this it should be the minimum provided for it to be a article of this size.) This article is rated B-Class. I created an article and because of lack of sources it was grown and deleted within 3 days. This does not properly cite its sources. As such it needs a lot of work, and is NOT B-Class. And just to let you all know, I am not doubting the events. I am simply pointing out that this article has a long way to go. Sources are no where to be seen. Please refference exact locations of information. Thank you. 201.90.205.203 15:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to log in. SadanYagci 15:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, I'm not a Wikipedian and I wouldn't really know how to edit this, but the part about the Moscow citings which says "The CIA retained several accounts of this wave from the Soviet-Russian media," notes that it needs a citation. Well, it seems to be plagiarized from http://www.nidsci.org/articles/dolan.php in section titled "The NIDS hypothesis." I'm not surprised that those guys don't cite a source either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.162.66.44 (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If the page is to be taken seriously AT ALL, it definitely needs more citations - until then it's just a page full of baseless, evidenceless claims. 70.179.185.98 (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Your lumping all of the "black triangle" information together and it doesnt make sense.

Why would you lump the articles about smaller black triangles like the Belgian ones in with the sightings of the "big deltas" a.k.a "the stealth blimp"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_Blimp These are two totally separate subjects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.111.22.27 (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Google Earth

The coordinates given, 30°30'41"S, 115°22'56"E, are in Emu Downs Wind Farm, Western Australia, some photos [www.eyeinthesky.com.au/creative_services/photography/emudownswindfarm.html here]. Pfly (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

TR-3A BS

Uggg, where does this crap come from? Some guy just shows up, claims to be an engineer from area 51, spouts a bunch of obviously bogus junk, and this gets reported to the wikipedia?! You can't modify gravity with magnetism. Period. It just doesn't work that way. If it did, your hard drive would be levitating (yes, that's a joke).

This whole section should be removed. Spurious storytelling with zero credibility or verifiability are not the sort of thing that should be in an encyclopedia! Should I just remove it?

Maury 20:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be true, notable frauds hoaxes and lore are all permissible topics. Just look at the page on Bigfoot, for example - perfectblue 20:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Not defending the claims of the "engineer from area 51" or anything in the article, but please see Magnetic levitation, quickly before you wonder where it is your hard drive flew off to while you were having dinner (yes, that's another joke). --T-dot 23:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm just reading it incorrectly, but the passage seems to be suggesting that the magnetic force is directly effecting gravity itself. Specifically, negates Earth's gravitational forces on the mass of the vehicle by 89%. Ok, so perhaps you could suggest that this means that it's simply providing 89% of the lift needed, but it does not read that way. Worse, it's obviously not possible to countere the mass of the vehicle, but the weight, which suggests it was written (or spoken) by someone with an extremely limited knowledge of high-school physics. Then it continues with these wonderful figures, can maneuver on the spot, vertically and horizontally, at incredible speeds up to Mach 9, and climb to an altitude of 120,000 feet (36.6 km). Well not only do all of those numbers sound completely bogus (not bogus in "can't do that", but bogus as in "just picked them out of the air"), and of course one needs to explain how magnetism can be used for a sideways propulsive force...
Making matters even more fun, one needs to remember that the TR-3, or as it was oh-so-cleverly "disguised" by calling it "Tier 3", is now a publically known UAV, the RQ-3 Dark Star. There was a time when the TR-3 was a cause célèbre in the aviation and UFO worlds, and was the subject of constant speculation with ever-inflating capabilities. While the aviation world did not generally say it was a UFO-like device, they did claim it used all sorts of exotic propulsion systems with various Mach-whatever ratings.
I still think this section needs to be removed completely. It appears to be nothing more than the ramblings of some guy who wanted to get his 15 minutes of fame among the UFO crowd. This is most definitely NOT something that should be in the wiki. Does anyone out there disagree, or should I just go ahead and clip? Maury


Actually no the TR-3 Black Manta and the RQ-3 Dark Star are not related, it is a coincidence. The names are different and the only similarity are they sound alike. The TR-3 designation would be consistent with a USAF aircraft designation. The name Tier III- comes from the DARPA LO-HEA UAV requirement which was first called Tier III but was later changed to Tier III-.
The first reported sighting and screen shot of video of an aircraft alleged to be a TR-3 was in 1993 at White Sands by aircraft photographer and plane chaser Steve Douglass. The RQ-3's first flight was in 1996. The TR-3 was theorized to be a USAF replacement for the TR-1/U-2R Tactical Reconnaissance aircraft based off the canceled USN A-12 Avenger II triangle shaped carrier based single seat attack aircraft. The A-12 was canceled in 1991 due to cost overruns. The TR-3 is rumored to have been canceled due to problems and the arrival of the RP-4Q Global Hawk. Anlushac11 (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


The speech referred: http://www.ufomind.com/misc/1998/aug/d26-001.shtml - It does sound like this chap made it up and the went on to sell his book for more information on this thing he made up.

Delete "September 11" editorializing

actually the reports about the black triangles are very true and do have something to do with 9/11 why do you think the "authorities" fired a missle into the pentagon???? they are very much real and disclosure is not far away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dperks (talk • contribs) 13:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


The text asserts that flying black triangles pose new "security implications...after the World Trade Center attack of September 11, 2001." But do they, really? It's somewhat hard to see how the security implications of UFOs are changed by a hijacking attack carried out by earthlings armed with low-tech weapons. The paragraph in question doesn't add much to the piece, but it certainly detracts from it by casually broaching an unrelated subject (post-9/11 hysteria).

So remove it.  :-) - Omegatron 22:57, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)


actualy that bit seems to have been lifted from the NIDS survey of black triangles.

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/flying_triangle_040902.html cites it thus

"Rather, it is consistent with (a) the routine and open deployment of an unacknowledged advanced DoD aircraft or (b) the routine and open deployment of an aircraft owned and operated by non-DoD personnel, suggests the NIDS study.

“The implications of the latter possibility are disturbing, especially during the post 9/11 era when the United States airspace is extremely heavily guarded and monitored," the NIDS study explains. "In support of option (a), there is much greater need for surveillance in the United States in the post 9/11 era and it is certainly conceivable that deployment of low altitude surveillance platforms is routine and open.”"

of course it could stand to be clarified.


well on the date of 9/11, people did report seeing something other than a plane or Helocopter in the sky, heck one took a picture of it as i heard. but it don't look like a black triangle, more of one of those "Lights" in the sky Tu-49 15:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

npov

I added the unreferenced and npov tags, if reliable citations for the sitings can be found then the tags can be rethought. There also seems to be undue weight given to proponents of UFO theories. There is almost no discussion of mundane explanations. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A few months later, I've started to remove unsourced material, especially material that is not encyclopedic. I'll do reference hunting once some of the more egregious stuff gets removed. Feel free to add anything back if you find a good source. BrendanFrye (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Where can I add my black traingle sighting? I added to the main page but it was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.210.95.72 (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear IP user, this is Wikipedia, so you can't add original research. If your sighting is published in an article or makes headlines, you may add it by providing any reliable source. You may also add it to the list of UFO sightings. serioushat 00:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Declassified UK Ministry of Defense Report sheds light on "Black Triangle" class UFOs

If anyone is following this article, I intend to adding the following relevant information from declassified UK military research on UFOs[1]:

  • UK military research has concluded that "Black Triangle" UFOs are caused by formations of electrical plasma caused by unknown atmospheric conditions. "Occasionally and perhaps exceptionally, it seems that a field with, as yet, undetermined characteristics, can exist between certain charged buoyant objects in loose formation, such that, depending on the viewing aspect, the intervening space between them forms an area (viewed as a shape, often triangular) from which the reflection of light does not occur. This is a key finding in the attribution of what have frequently been reported as black 'craft,' often triangular and even up to hundreds of feet in length."
  • These plasma formations also have the effect through "magnetic, electric or electromagnetic (or even unknown field), appears to emanate from some of the buoyant charged masses. Local fields of this type have been medically proven to cause responses in the temporal lobes of the human brain. These result in the observer sustaining his or her own vivid, but mainly incorrect, description of what is experienced. This is suggested to be a key factor in influencing the more extreme reports found in the media and are clearly believed by the 'victims.'

There is a lot of interesting information in these documents, but it hasn't gotten much attention among UFO enthusiasts, possibly because it is in a format that doesn't allow for copy/pasting text and therefore it is a hassle to convey the information second-hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boatscaptain (talk • contribs) 22:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C90CF514-2B4F-4BD4-83B8-56470F9FC1D2/0/uap_exec_summary_dec00_pt2.pdf

I read the whole article...

I read the whole article, I didn't really see much dispute about neutrality. It seemed like it might be just a little leaning towards that it's some aircraft, but all the evidence DOES show that there was something there, and it can't be denied. Unibrow1994 (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Included various citations to the project condign report

I am removing the neutrality dispute tag. We now have a citations for various causes as opposed to the "aircraft" hypothesis, so I'm assuming that addresses the complaint. Personally I think the all "TR-3B.com" citations should be deleted because that does not appear to be an encyclopedic source, but I will wait until whoever included it responds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boatscaptain (talk • contribs) 01:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear Propulsion on Aircrafts

About this part of the artical:

Also, if a conventional nuclear reactor is used, it would have to be designed in an unconventional and otherwise unheard of way: the reactor would need bulky shielding, and the heat produced would have to be converted into electricity to run the coils that produce the magnetic field used to levitate the aircraft, making all the needed machinery probably too heavy for flight.

The USSR did succesfully test an aircraft equipt with an (operational) nuclear reactor on board in the 60s (see Tupolev Tu-119), therefor, this isn't all that unlikely and thus this part might need some editing. Crownsteler 14:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That article does say the aircraft could only fly for 48 hours because the crew was exposed to radiation - shielding must have been sacrificed to save weight. Plus - reading up on the engines the reactor supposedly powered - the NK-12 and NK-14, they're turbo props. So how can a nuclear reactor "power" gas-turbine aircraft engines? Doesn't it need combustible fuel? Cyberia23 03:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

An aircraft can be powered by a nuclear reactor. Unlikely to be a jet aircraft, however. Nor is radiation necessarily a problem. A submarine style nuclear reactor uses a big water tank for shielding, and it works very very well. Assuming air cooling of the secondary coolant loop, you would be good to go as long as you maintained a minimal airspeed. Propulsion would be done by driving propellers (probably electrically from generators driven by a steam turbine) Even better would be a big dirigible -- plenty of lifting capacity. So it is both possible and feasible -- just not economically viable or militarily particularly useful. SunSw0rd 21:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


The US built and flew a modified Convair NB-36H which carried a operational 3 megawatt nuclear reactor and operated between 1955 and 1957 and made 47 flights. It was used to evaluate the requirements and problems of building and operating a airborne reactor.

http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/anp.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_X-6

Anlushac11 (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem here isn't the reactor itself but the propulsion technique suggested. In a nuclear powerplant, the reactor provides heat energy that is used to put the medium (water, steam) under high pressure and because of that it jets out when exposed to a low pressure area. So you put a turbine in between and the movement of the medium causes the turbine to rev up, and you attach an electrical generator to the shaft and the rotary motion generates electricity. On a nuclear ship the turbine shaft powers the propellers. On a nuclear aircraft the nuclear heat is used to heat up the compressed air in the jet turbine or turboprop, thus doing the very same job that the fuel would have otherwise. This magnetic coil nonsense would require a nuclear powerplant of the first kind, that is, with the reactor itself, turbines to provide a rotary motion AND electrical generators to convert it into electricity. So basically that's what we are talking about here, I guess. Again, the problem isn't the reactor stuff but the levitation hypothesis that is physically implausible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.204.90 (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

other black triangle is US

this is an amazing section of wiki talk- i have never seen it this open and far reaching in allowing viewpoints. I dare say it is important to note that there was a massive cover up of info or images about the Phoenix Lights incident. There are no images available anywhere except those from some films taken by a few people ? How odd. And no police transcripts of Phoenix Ariz during the event? I think we are the black triangle also.WE allow others to control what we are able to know. We are being taken away from the facts. I hope you realize this.oh my i have made a contribution to all the confusion...Blondeignore (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The header image is inaccurate.

I've seen a black triangle UFO. It was wedge shaped, the size of a football field, low to the ground, very slow, and silent. The ship had symmetrical lights, with one on the tip. It surely didn't look like a perfect triangle, as the image header suggests. Anyone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.85.135 (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Everyone knows the shape of a UFO depends on the potency of the weed you smoke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.25.84 (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Rendlesham Forest incident

I made an addition to the Rendlesham forest section which has been undone with no reason given. Wiki's own entry on this incident is comprehensive, balanced, and evidenced. Notably it does not refer to any black triangles whatsoever, but refers to lights being seen. There is a reasonable account of what witnesses saw heard and did, then a nicely balanced look at the evidence and its reliability. My addition was an attempt at a brief summary of the article to maintain a NPOV by adding to this piece. I am rewriting the addition and putting it back in place to add an element of NPOV to the black triangle article as I think it is pertinent - even if it doesn't support the contention that black triangles are an alien phenomenon. Mungo Shuntbox (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The "pyramid shaped craft" which was mentioned in this section (and which seems to be the sole reason for this incident to be included on this page) is NOT mentioned at all on the main page which was referenced (Rendlesham Forest incident). In fact, there is no reference even to a triangular craft - which would be the reason to include the section here. By the way - a pyramid is not a triangle. As this seems to be a total non-sequitur, I deleted the section entirely. RobP (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Black triangle (UFO). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reason the sighting reports are not in chronological order? Reports from 1989 and 1997 appear after reports from 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:EE8C:6300:ED56:380D:8F43:82E1 (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Black triangle (UFO). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

With articles such as this nobody will take Wikipedia seriously

This article belongs with the likes of telekinesis, telepathy and such nonsense. Wikipedia is supposed to be a place of free knowledge, not unchecked magical thinking and pseudoscience. There is no place for aliens and UFOs in here.

I disagree Wikipedia did not claim to see these things other people did Wikipedia also did not share their opinion on these sights they just did there job and wrote about them Meldoythemush (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Phoenix Lights

Does any one remember the pheonix lights? there were 7 lights in a boomerang shape floating above arizona/new mexico in 1999 i think. but it seem as if no one really remembers this event. it moved silently, which made it seem likely to be the same, but no mention on it yet. if you have more info post.

Hopefully I granted everyones wish. I added info on the Phoenix Lights and found some images of black triangles to add to the article. I'm a UFO buff myself, but I veiw everything with an open mind and a bit of scepticism. I tried to write this as "neutrally" as possible. SkeezerPumba 22:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why wouldn't an RPV be able to hover? I can go to a hobby shop right now and get a radio-controlled toy helicopter that can hover, and I'm just a civilian. Why couldn't engineers with sufficient funding build a jet-powered VTOL RPV?

Why bother? First off you need to remember there were several different "Phoenix Lights", with different properties. Two were most certainly a formation of aircraft. A third (and I believe more IIRC) were almost certainly flares. The UFO supporters have used the confusion between these separate events to make it sound like all of the events were similar, and therefore had properties as a whole that could not be explained.
The two "V formation" events were most certainly a formation of small aircraft. This sort of UFO is extremely easy to arrange by even novice pilots. Basically you fly into formation with only the anti-collision light turned on, assuming it is on top (which it normally is for small aircraft) and therefore invisible on the ground. Then, on command over the radio, you all turn on your landing lights. Presto, one "massive UFO". Since the human eye is basically useless at estimating anything at long distances and in dark conditions, at night it is essentially impossible to guess the size or distance of the "object", and different witnesses will give greatly differing accounts -- until they meet, at which point the stories start to merge. Let's not forget that one kid actually got a telescope on these things, and could clearly see they were planes.
The second type of event does appear to be of flares. They were in the right place, look right (they dropped flares at Base Borden every so often near my parents place as a kid), and are distributed through the air correctly. These are the ones you see on the main video tape they show on TV.
Because the flare events and aircraft events were so different looking, if you don't separate the two then it all seems so impossible. The flares seemed to suggest a long object hovering in the air, while the aircraft looked like a V moving slowly. Sure, if you try to come up with a single explanation for both events you'll have a hard time, but if you keep them separate it suddenly seems much less mysterious.
Maury 19:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

yes i have heard of the phoenix lights, that was a two UFO event, or three according to one truck driver whose name escapes me. people did say they saw a HUGE triangle then those chain of lights that scptics (if i spelled it right) call Flares. for one thing those lights were not flares, flares fall to the ground after being released and give of a burning noise. in this case, they didn't move or make a sound. Tu-49 15:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw a pretty convincing debunk of the Phoenix lights a couple of years back. Somebody used the landmarks in the best of the lights images to find the exact spot where they were taken, then they superimposed the images over a higher quality still of the area in daylight and found that the point at which each of the lights vanished exactly lined up with a mountain ridge in the background. This meant that the lights were a lot further away than most witnesses described them, and that they didn't disappear but rather moved out of view beneath the hill line in the distance. - perfectblue 20:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Nope, they were silent and like changing shape spheres. --81.38.202.206 (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

extraordinary claims

The claim on a triangle-shaped body flying near ground level is bold enough that it needs strong, reliable sources to be presented even as a remote posibility. This reads like some crank website content being pushed onto Wikipedia trying to present itself in a remotely neutral fashion. It's very likely these sources can't be found because they don't exist. So don't spread misinformation. 2001:470:600D:CAFE:329C:23FF:FE0A:105C (talk) 06:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

...need extraordinary proof

"Craft using an inertial mass reduction device" https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en

"High frequency gravitational wave generator" https://patents.google.com/patent/US10322827B2/en

"Piezoelectricity-induced High Temperature Superconductor" https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190348597A1/en?inventor=Salvatore+Cezar+Pais — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:1845:7400:F01B:93AD:D8B8:91E2 (talk) 07:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


Patents do not prove anything actually works. Honestly the entire 'Candidates' section at the bottom of the page reads like something from the Star Trek technobabble program. A better secondary source beyond the patents are needed if this section is to be kept. Bgovern (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

TR-3B

Page redirection

Why does "TR-3B" redirect here, then it isn't mentioned at all in the actual text of the article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 06:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. It is not obvious, TR-3B should be at least a title. Cghislai (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Unmerge from black triangle

The TR-3B is a speculative black project military american aircraft. The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_project seems appropriate for that content. There are a lot of other speculated military aircraft in developpment there. It could still be listed as a possible explanation for the black triangle here. Cghislai (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

NIDS article

The Military aircraft section mentions ref 15 (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5897539) for the sentence "A geographic analysis by the now-inactive National Institute for Discovery Science suggested that Black triangles might be U.S. Air Force craft.". However the referenced article mentions "That finding has led to a modification of an earlier NIDS hypothesis that the Triangles are covertly deployed Defense Department aircraft.", and ends with: 'Those analyses fall into two camps: One says the Triangles are human-made, while the other says they are not.

“In 2004 it is extremely difficult to distinguish between these two possibilities, since the former option overlaps heavily with legitimate national security concerns, while in the absence of much more physical evidence, the latter option is not testable,” the NIDS assessment concludes.'. I think this nbc news in not an appropriate source for that claim. I think the original NIDS study could be referenced, but if it concludes that way I don't think it adds any value. The quoted sentence should be removed from this article altogether in my opinion. Cghislai (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The external link to space.com (https://www.space.com/302-silent-running-black-triangle-sightings-rise.html) contains the same article than reference 15 (https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna5897539). Ref 15 should be removed, it sources the space.com article. The space.com article link could be kept, but it only sources a NIDS study, and the NIBS study would be a better source (see point above on military aircraft). Cghislai (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Rendlesham SAS rubbish?

Isn't this story about Rendlesham being a 'prank' by the SAS likely to be nonsense? For example, a quote regarding Dr David Clarke who suggested this theory (https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/raf-woodbridge-ufo-sighting-new-theory-1-5835938) 'He claims SAS soldiers who parachuted into the American base to test their defences were embarrassed at being caught and imprisoned for 18 hours where they were subjected to intense questioning by US personnel, who called them unidentified ‘aliens’.' Does it really seem likely that British soldiers would be subjected to detention and intense questioning within Britain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A312:C43D:5680:AD4C:CBC0:84FB:8117 (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

What you suggest is the opposite of Occam's razor, i.e. alien/ufo landing is more likely than some form of petty conflict between humans. Anyway, the material is reliably sourced and we don't need to balance rational claims with kooky ones. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Does it really seem likely that British soldiers would be subjected to detention and intense questioning within Britain? At the hands of angry US military personnel? As Captain Renault would say, "I am shocked, shocked." JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

SR-71

Couldn't some black triangles actually have been the SR-71 Blackbird? It had a light in the centre of its roof. 2001:4BC9:A43:A8E8:F0DD:696F:4A1A:8F98 (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

If you have any reliable, secondary sources that present this idea, go right ahead and add the content. With the source(s), of course. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Revised or Deleted or Merged

As it stands, this article reads more like something out of aTimothy Good book than a responsible and properly sourced and contextualized Wikipedia article. It reads as non-NPOV, conjectural, original research, and irresponsible and sloppy reporting. It should be revamped to be in line with the main article on UFOs, and drastically reduced in scope, especially the incomplete, poorly sourced and irrelevant list of sightings. It should be merged with the main article after such a revamp, or it could be a candidate for deletion for undue importance or simply poor quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.153.17 (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

A more unbiased text

I believe this article should be revised in the following way:

  • renamed to black triangle craft
  • add a heading called Possible explanations and list these explanations
    • Previously unacknowledged black projects, such as B-2 and F-117 Nighthawk (as they can certainly explain some sightings, but not all)
    • Still unacknowledged black projects
    • rename the current heading British sightings and UK Ministry of Defence Report to Atmospheric gaseous electrically charged buoyant plasmas
    • Non-human intelligence origin

The article should not be deleted, since people still report this type of craft, and it should not be merged with the UFO article since some of the sightings are verified human crafts. I understand that some of you read UFO the right way (as an unidentified flying object) but many readers will interpret it as an extraterrestrial object. It certainly can be an extreterrestrial object, but it can also be a black project, so a more neutral article is better. At the moment the article reads like it's an extraeterrestrial UFO. A more balanced approach will make this article more usefull, and I hope that a balanced approach will encourage dialog and understanding of different perspectives.

I'm not a UFO debunker. Supermindway (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

We don't really do WP:FALSEBALANCE here. Reliable sources are skeptical, and so to should be the Wikipedia article. MrOllie (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Are you refering to my inclusion of non-human intelligence origin? Supermindway (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, nothing here is actionable because you didn't provide sources. But I am referring to your suggestion that A more balanced approach will make this article more usefull, and I hope that a balanced approach will encourage dialog and understanding of different perspectives. - which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. MrOllie (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

TR-3B Redirect?

TR-3B redirects here, but the article only mentions the TR-3A. What is the TR-3B, and can we get it mentioned in the article? 166.181.83.206 (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Soesterberg Triangle

I added this text to the page:

February 3, 1979, twelve soldiers saw a huge black triangle fly above the Soesterberg Air Base. It had three bright lights on the front, a red light on the back. It flew over the base and then shot away, like a bullet from a gun, as described by the witnesses.

The source was: https://www.rtvutrecht.nl/nieuws/3656485/ufo-die-in-1979-boven-vliegbasis-soesterberg-vloog-maakte-onuitwisbare-indruk-op-militairen

I thought it should be of great interest since it's a triangle case ten years prior to the well known Belgian UFO wave, but it was removed with the comment "Credulous anecdote written by a ufologist".

I don't see how this is "credulous anecdote", since it's twelve military witnesses.

I don't see how this is "assume good faith", "be polite", or "be welcoming to newcomers". I'm trying to contribute and I get labeled a ufologist.

How is the above case any different than the 2004–2006 Tinley Park Lights? It also uses news media as references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermindway (talk • contribs) 16:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The cited source is a puff piece about a movie premiere. I agree it isn't a reliable source for the article. MrOllie (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
@Supermindway, I didn't call you a ufologist. I was talking about Bram Roza and what he wrote about the claimed sighting. The "twelve soldiers" are unidentified as are the "people" Roza spoke with. In fact the article is very short on any factual detail, it's just a lot of claims that people were "impressed". Wikipedia requires WP:FRIND sources for fringe claims. Media sources that take every fringe claim at face value, with no fact checking, investigation, or expert analysis, are no good to us. I hope you'll agree, a big part of being welcoming to newcomers is assisting them in understanding the encyclopedia's editorial policies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Maybe it would be possible to find original sources for this incident. In the new documentary on the incident, original newspaper articles are presented, and witnesses give their testimony on tape. I agree with Supermindway, this is one of the most significant black triangle incidents, and should be included somewhere on the page.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU-s7NHPeUo 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:78A5:5930:AE:59D0 (talk) 10:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
We should continue to rely on secondary WP:RS, not primary source accounts, as is required by Wikipedia's policy. MrOllie (talk) 12:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Inaccurate information in section on the 2000 Southern Illinois incident.

The text in question is:

"Science writer Brian Dunning has reported that the observed object was identified by the FAA as an advertising blimp operated by the American Blimp Company.[16]"

16. Dunning, Brian. "The St. Clair Triangle UFO". Skeptoid. Skeptoid Media Inc. Retrieved 2021-09-16. <https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4435>

It is true that Dunning and others hypothesized that it was a blimp, and made arguments supporting their hypothesis, but untrue that it was identified by the FAA as an advertising blimp. The inaccuracy may have been carried over from an inaccuracy in Dunning's podcast transcript.

Dunning wrote: "Writing in the St. Louis Riverfront Times three months after the incident, reporter William Stage said he'd been advised by the FAA that the object reported was an advertising blimp."

The riverfront times article cited by Dunning wrote:

'The Lebanon Advertiser, on the other hand, gave the story front-page, over-the-fold prominence in its Jan. 12 edition: "Huge UFO Is Reported to Have Flown Over Lebanon," blared the headline. The story's final paragraph noted that "the Federal Aviation Administration has suggested that the object may have been an advertising blimp.'

Stage, W. "Witnesses testify in the mystery of the Metro East UFO." Space Case. Riverfront Times, 5 Apr. 2000. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. <http://www.riverfronttimes.com/stlouis/space-case/Content?oid=2474776>

The conflation of the FAA saying "it may have been a blimp", with the FAA identifying it as a blimp is the issue here. It is not true to say it was identified. Dunning, also says, "Unfortunately, nobody at Van Wagner knew of any records showing the details of times and dates of blimps in transit from one event to another back in 2000", and so was also not able to positively identify the object as a blimp.

I will wait a few days for others to take in this information and think about it before proposing an edit to correct the inaccuracy. Thank you for your time. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85CB:859D:215C:9CEA (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Clarified that the FAA suggested it was an advertising blimp. Three sources cover it, so no need to attribute it to Dunning alone. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
That's better, but might as well make it precise according to the source, "may be" as opposed to "likely". Might have essentially the same meaning with some wiggle room, but "likely" has a different connotation, and using this word instead of the actual words reported gives the impression there is an intention of the editor to manipulate the reader. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85BF:3BD4:18B1:81B6 (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
To be honest, the rest of the sentence, "advertising blimp operated in the area by the American Blimp Company", is also misleading. It was simply reported that the FAA suggested it may have been an advertising blimp. No need to tack on extra fictional information. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85BF:3BD4:18B1:81B6 (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Should we allow vague assertions like this?

At the end of the section on the Belgian wave, it just says, "This entire Belgian UFO wave, however, has been disputed by skeptics.[14][11]". Isn't this way too vague of an assertion. Ideally, what has been disputed should be explicit. Also, [11] is just a transcript of a podcast, and the dispute seems highly subjective and lacking substance, basically just a person's opinion. It also contains errors, such as "If 13,500 people did all actually see something that they took for a UFO at the time, I guarantee you that more than just a single photograph would have resulted". You can see for example, at least one video not mentioned in the podcast exists, with provenience. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBUULtF0TGw

Can we delete this sentence? Or alternatively, if it must stay, can we clarify what was actually disputed. For example [14] specifically proposes a hypothesis that some of the events could have been caused by helicopters, and [15] asserts that the 13,500 eyewitness accounts are the result of a psychosocial phenomenon? 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:78A5:5930:AE:59D0 (talk) 05:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and delete it.
It should be noted that the photo associated with the photo in the Belgium wave section is also fishy, because none of the citations match that particular photo. The podcast cited [11] shows a different photo, although also attributed to Patrick Maréchal. And news article, [13] shows yet another photo different than the one in the section and different than the one in [12] but also attributes it to the same person. Yet the source of the actual image in this section, https://web.archive.org/web/20081205155054/http://www.abduct-anon.com/AUTHENTIC%20PHOTOS.htm, attributes the image to J.S. Henradi. The source of this image is also a highly fringe website. The image should either be replaced to be consistent with the sources that are cited, or removed all together. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:78A5:5930:AE:59D0 (talk) 08:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I reverted the latest changes - they were generally pushing POV (repeatedly inserting the word 'purportedly') and overall replaced properly sourced content with more credulous text. - MrOllie (talk) 12:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
You need to justify why you added back the photo from abaduct-anon.com, that doesn't even match the photos discussed by Dunning, or the other sources that are cited, neither in their purported origin or the image itself.
Using the word purportedly is preferable to just asserting the thing is true, when that's not the case. Please under the revert. Thank you. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:28CE:DC6B:B0:D666 (talk) 20:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
You are not supposed to revert without good cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:28CE:DC6B:B0:D666 (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
First, I did find it necessary, that is why I did it. Second, that is an essay, not a policy or guideline. It's somebody's opinion.
Using the word 'purportedly' is an example of a WP:WEASEL word (that really is a guideline), we do not insert such words to try to undercut the reliable sources. That is POV pushing - even if you personally disagree with the source, Wikipedia policy is that we follow what it says.
You have shown no evidence that the website you linked is the source of the image, and not one of the many, many sites that host a copy of it because the photographer placed it in the public domain, allowing it to be used freely and widely. The image you removed was a valuable illustration of the topic of the article, and contained important cited content in the image caption. That should not be removed. MrOllie (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
"Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged, and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined"
The reason purported was added, is that the claim was not determined. You did not give a valid reason to undo the revert, and if you were being honest, you'd recognize that the edits I made dramatically improved the quality of the page, as in its previous form it contained multiple misleading or untrue bits of information. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:28CE:DC6B:B0:D666 (talk) 21:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
You've omitted crucial context from your quotation: such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial. That is not the case here. MrOllie (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The article doesn't address the word purportedly in this specific context, but uses criminal trial as an example. In the case of an anecdote from an anonymous person, purported is better than stating what the person said as a being a fact as was previously the case before added. If you don't like that, maybe make a good faith edit, replacing the word purported with, <X> said, or something like that. Or remove the statement in question all together. The goal should be for the article to be accurate. You're just undoing the work I put in to correct obvious errors in the article. Take the time to verify what you are doing makes sense before doing it. Thanks. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:28CE:DC6B:B0:D666 (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Reverting your changes is in fact a 'good faith edit', because your edits made the article worse. You are not correcting 'obvious errors', you are pushing your personal POV in a way that obviously conflicts with Wikipedia's content policies. MrOllie (talk) 21:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
You can simply look at the source of the image, and compare it with the images in the cited sources, and see clearly they are not the same image, nor have the same provenience.
Here is the image. It comes from a credulous abduction website, that credits the image to J.S. Henradi.
https://web.archive.org/web/20081205155054/http://www.abduct-anon.com/AUTHENTIC%20PHOTOS.htm
Source one, [11] https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4538, shows a different image with different provenience.
Source [12] shows no image, but speaks about the same story from [11].
https://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/2011/07/28/01008-20110728ARTFIG00353-la-photo-d-un-ovni-belge-celebre-etait-un-trucage.php
Source [13] shows yet a different image (not the one Dunning discussed or abduct-anon.com) but with the same provenience
as [11] and [12].
https://www.science-et-vie.com/article-magazine/photos-dovnis-la-plus-celebre-etait-fausse 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:28CE:DC6B:B0:D666 (talk) 21:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps you have not seen the warnings on your IP talk page: You must stop revert warring. You have seen that others disagree with your changes - continuing as you have been will get your IP blocked and/or the page locked so that IP editors may not longer change it. MrOllie (talk) 21:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
"Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection."
Have you read this? 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:28CE:DC6B:B0:D666 (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I have, and I will draw the inevitable and logical conclusion. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
IP, you do understand that you have been reverted by multiple other people, correct? MrOllie (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Most of the errors I found and tried to correct are still present. It would seem that this page is guarded too heavily by people with a shared POV who will prefer the errors to persist as long as they promote their own POV, to make it worthwhile for me to attempt to get these errors to be corrected. The information elucidating the errors is here on the talk page, so if anyone with enough authority to get these errors fixed, who cares about the integrity of Wikipedia, wants to take on the burden themselves, feel free to do so. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:0:0:0:45C (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_triangle_(UFO)/Archive_1&oldid=1258765789"