Talk:Pentagon UFO videos

Untitled

Note: Previous discussion is here: Talk:USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents. That article was merged to here, but not the talk page.

Tone???

This intro is overtly snide. Why? 2001:56B:9FEE:6B3B:0:44:B156:AD01 (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to be more specific. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i assume IP refers to the parenthetical "as is typical in the context of such incidents" with a citation to Vice Magazine. NotBartEhrman (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navy pilot Alex Dietrich videos from reliable sources

Lieutenant Commander Alex Dietrich. Her extensive bio:

These Google searches pull up multiple videos concerning her Tic Tac UFO experience from reliable sources: [1] [2]

From CNN, 60 Minutes, Reuters, PBS News Hour, CBS News, and many more. Most are articles that also happen to have videos with her in the videos.

American Veterans Center posted a video interview of her. Posted March 18, 2025:

First part is her extensive military history. At 8:30 into the video she discusses in detail her Tic Tac UFO (her words) experience with pilot David Fravor, etc..

I discussed a 60 Minutes video previously here:

--Timeshifter (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you proposing be added to the article from all this? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I often do I provide references from reliable sources to the talk pages of articles. I let people with more time decide how to incorporate any of the material. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a waste of time. If you don't have actual content to contribute, you're just fobbing the actual work of figuring out WTF you meant on others. It's just throwing things at the wall in the hopes something will stick. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop with the personal attacks and insinuations. Something you often do I have noticed. You are one of the very few people who have ever objected to me providing relevant reliable sources to the talk pages of articles. Sometimes I have time to do some of the writing too. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added link to the interview, thanks for the source. Feoffer (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Feoffer: Thanks. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of that was a personal attack, it was pointing out that you're telling everyone else to do the work. You're not providing "relevant resources" because you're just throwing links at us & expecting us to dig through them to find whatever is "relevant" to this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both the research and the writing are necessary. I often add the relevant links to article talk pages. Saves others some time. It allows others to use it for writing whether I get around to writing or not. If I only added the links after I started writing, then others would be deprived of the opportunity to use the sources sooner. I am not telling anyone to do the work. They can decide to do so or not. I am giving them the opportunity, not an order. It may take awhile before people get around to using it. But I notice that my links are often used eventually. We are nearly all volunteers, so there is no forced schedule. So please stop insulting me, and belittling my efforts just because of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. I notice you do a lot of these little passive-aggressive attacks or insinuations towards editors you disagree with. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you do a lot of these little passive-aggressive attacks or insinuations towards editors you disagree with. <--- That really is a personal attack, though. MrOllie (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that is an attack. It is an observation. Maybe I should be more clear. Towards me I have often seen a lack of assuming good faith. WP:AGF. And little niggling characterizations of my efforts such as: "That's a waste of time. If you don't have actual content to contribute,". Relevant links are not a waste of time. Feoffer used one above. Relevant links can thus be considered content too. If they eventually are used in an article then they are content in the article. Content in the references section. "you're just throwing links at us". Another little jab. "fobbing the actual work of figuring out WTF you meant on others." As if researching links is not actual work. And why the extra "WTF you meant". It's just a total lack of respect and assuming good faith. And it's obvious that the links are relevant. Alex Dietrich is already mentioned in the article. And so articles with videos are also relevant. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ASPERSIONS like that are clearly personal attacks. Adding more length hasn't changed that. That you feel you aren't getting respect isn't a reason to do that. MrOllie (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is an essay. "accuse another of misconduct without evidence." I provided evidence. No personal attack. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And why the extra "WTF you meant".
Simply put, you're throwing out links and expecting us to comb through it to figure out what part of the content is relevant to this article. Hence why I asked specifically what you wanted to add to this article, instead of trying to read your mind.
And it's obvious that the links are relevant.
No, it's really not. I think you overestimate the importance of what you're viewing and keep throwing things in here that are not relevant. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than belabor this, please see my previous replies. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those replies are just your refusal to listen. I'm done with this tangent. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rescued content from Luis Elizondo if useful here about the videos

Hi, I just removed this from my clean up on Luis Elizondo here at this link, if this is useful here:

The Pentagon did not acknowledge the videos after their release, but more than two years after the New York Times stories, the Pentagon formally declassified and declared the videos real, stating it was to "clear up any misconceptions by the public on whether or not the footage that has been circulating was real".[1] Writer Art Levine noted, ”Not surprisingly, that language reinforced the notion that aliens were involved".[2]

Thanks! -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC) -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Turak, Natasha (April 28, 2020). "Pentagon declassifies three UFO videos taken by Navy pilots". CNBC. Archived from the original on 2023-07-21. Retrieved May 7, 2020.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Levine Spectator Jul 2023 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pentagon_UFO_videos