Talk:Green fireballs

Disputed

According to Watch the Skies, by Curtis Peebles, 27-29, "In mid-February 1949, a meeting was held at Los Alamos to discuss the green fireballs. Making up the group were military officers, Los Alamos scientists, La Paz, atmospheric physicist Dr. Joseph Kaplan, and Edward Teller. ... Most had seen a green fireball. La Paz led a group who believed the green fireballs were not natural objects. ... Most people at the meeting felt that green fireballs were simply unusual meteors. Green meteors, although not common, where known. ... After two days, the group concluded that green fireballs were a natural phenomenon." Bubba73 (talk), 00:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added an external link on the main page to the actual final report of Project Twinkle. A small quote: "There has been no indication that even the somewhat strange observations often called "Green Fireballs" are anything but natural phenomena. " Bubba73 (talk), 16:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Quoting from [1]

... "This was one conference where there was no need to discuss whether or not this special type of UFO, the green fireball, existed. Almost everyone at the meeting had seen one. The purpose of the conference was to decide whether the fireballs were natural or man-made and how to find out more about them. "...

... "People who were at that meeting have told me that Dr. La Paz's theory was very interesting and that each point was carefully considered. But evidently it wasn't conclusive enough because when the conference broke up, after two days, it was decided that the green fireballs were a natural phenomenon of some kind. " ...

and ... "He mentioned Dr. La Paz and his opinion that the green fireballs might be man-made, and although he respected La Paz's professional ability, he just wasn't convinced." ...

... "From the conversations, I assumed that these people didn't think the green fireballs were any kind of a natural phenomenon. Not exactly, they said, but so far the evidence that said they were a natural phenomenon was vastly outweighed by the evidence that said they weren't. " ...

La Paz had a different opinion, but "...He hoped that they were a natural phenomenon..." Bubba73 (talk), 18:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

---

This is simply bunk! Don't take my word for it. You can read the transcript of the meeting online here: [2]

As you'll see if you read it, most of the meeting was devoted to La Paz describing his findings to date and a lot of questions being asked of him. It is simply not true that "most people at the meeting felt felt that the green fireballs were simply unusual meteors." It is more proper to say that they mostly deferred to La Paz's expertise, were puzzled, and had no explanation. Scientists like Teller and Bradbury did speculate about possible natural origins like meteors but agreed that findings like flat trajectories and absence of sound would probably ruled that out. Teller suggested possibly an atmospheric electrical phenomenon, but Bradbury noted that in itself would have problems as an explanation.

Peebles statement that "green meteors, although not common, were known" is also misleading and was dealt with at the conference. As La Paz notes, the green fireballs were a lime-green or yellow-green, but "green" meteors, besides being rare, were actually blue-green:

Dr. Bradbury: Green is not an unknown color in meteors?

Dr. LaPaz: If I were to rewrite the report that I first presented on that subject instead of saying "rarely observed" this color green, I think I would now say "never observed". You sometimes see green, Dr. Bradbury, but it is a blue-green. The blue-green color is rare, but it is observed. For instance, Dr. Sherman Smith's observation was essentially a blue-green, but on the blue side.

...Dr. Bradbury: But it's apparently a yellowish-green we're talking about here. If you can see a bluish-green, you can also see yellows and whites.

Dr. LaPaz: There is some defect, possibly in the vision, that requires a pretty high intensity in that yellow-green before it's noted in a meteor fall.

(Please note that this means that your example that you inserted at the end of the article of "green" meteor is also misleading. It is instead an example of a blue-green meteor mentioned by La Paz, not the strange yellow-green fireballs.)

Peebles is also wrong about the meeting lasting two days. It doesn't seem that Peebles bothered to read the minutes and just made up most of his statements about what transpired.

Please remove the "disputed" flag. There is nothing to dispute here other than the accuracy of Peebles.

Realize Bubba that just because a skeptic writes something that you apparently want to believe doesn't mean they're telling the truth or have their facts straight. You've done the same over on the Majestic 12 write-up, just regurgitating Klass, even though many of his objections are provably false. It's going to take some time to clean up the many factual errors in that article as presently written, while trying to present both sides. Dr Fil, 5 December 2005

---

This is nonsense. Green fireballs are quite common; the colour is caused by the ionisation of oxygen. Here is a link to a page which explains that, with a nice picture of green fireballs to boot. http://www.cloudbait.com/science/fireballs.html The colour of ionised oxygen is also visible in aurorae; I have seen it that context and it is neither blue-green nor lime green, but a middle range green, so could easily be observed as either. It looks to me as if this Dr LaPaz was mistaken in that respect. He was mistaken too if he accepted the estimates of height made by some of the witnesses; meteors and bolides are generally observed at heights of 20-40 kilometers, not a few thousand feet, although most observers think they are much closer and lower. So that makes Dr LaPaz's estimates of speed almost certainly inaccurate. eburacum

---

It is pretty clear that you again don't know what you're talking about. LaPaz wasn't using estimates of height or speed by witnesses. Where did you dream that up? LaPaz always triangulated such data from at least two different sets of witnesses, which is something completely different, because you get quantitative results, not estimates. It's a technique he had used for a very long time to determine trajectories of meteor fireballs, find the impact point, and then recover meteorites. He was considered one of the world's experts in doing this. Triangulation from witness accounts is still used in tracking down meteorites.

In the case of the huge green fireball of January 30, 1948, literally hundreds of witnesses were interviewed. Again LaPaz came up with anomously low altitude and speed, based on triangulated reconstruction of trajectory, not witness guesses. I don't think you know the difference.

As for the green color, the color of the green fireballs was lime-green, not blue- green from ionized oxygen. LaPaz knew all about occasional blue-green color being reported in meteors. He knew about blue-green auroras. LaPaz had been watching the skies and studying meteor reports for over 30 years. He said the color was completely unlike any other meteor he had ever observed or had ever been reported. LaPaz was a world-class astronomer and meteor expert, not some CSICOP skeptic who doesn't even have the basic facts straight.

---

More nonsense. Lime green is a subjective assessment of the colour, and auroral ionised oxygen often tends toward lime green shades. Examples here http://www.windows.ucar.edu/earth/Magnetosphere/aurora/images/aurora_1_hao_comet.jpg http://local.aaca.org/fairbanks/images/Aurora%20photo-green.jpg http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/spaceweather/lenticular/green_aurora.jpg http://www.abmedia.com/astro/aurora/aurora110904-12.jpg These images look mid-range green to yellow green to me, rather than blue green. In fact I have never seen a noticably blue-green aurora; that suggests to me that LaPaz was consciously or subconsciously biased in favour of anomaly in this case. Triangulation of meteor heights using witnesses is inaccurate to an order of magnitude or more unless you have instrumentation; luckily one 'green fireball' sighting at White Sands did involve triangulation using cinetheodolites. The height calculated was 150,000 feet (45 kilometers) which is entirely consistent with a meteor. eburacum

---

Color, speed and altitude weren't the only anomalous characteristics. Absence of sound was another.

---

Absence of sound in a meteor observation is not an anomaly, it is the expected situation. As meteors occur several tens of kilometers away from the observer any sound which might be noticed would be heard a number of minutes later. Just for your information, the question of sound in meteors has its own anomalous aspect; some observers report instantaneous sound, which is supposedly impossible. One theory is that radio waves from the meteor are received by equipment near the observer in certain circumstances, and heard as static white noise, But I digress. eburacum

---

Also flat trajectories and occasional observed course changes. Turning on and off like a light switch. Lack of a smoke trail. Confinement in geographical area, with a predilection towards sensitive areas like Los Alamos. Inability to ever find fragments, despite extensive searches, quite unlike the other meteor fireballs LaPaz had tracked and recovered meteorite fragments from. This had LaPaz convinced that the green slimely hot fireballs were artificial, and he wasn't the only one. Dr. Mariarchi, the first head of Project Twinkle was convinced of it too. Dr Fil 18:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Argument from authority, and an authority with out of date information. Dr LaPaz was a pioneer in the study of meteors; but fifty years of additional data now show that green meteors are not unusual phenomena at all. eburacum

---

Here is a spectrographic analysis of a Perseid meteor made in 1999; http://amsmeteors.org/spectra/majdenobs.html the most interesting feature is the 'forbidden line' of O1 at 5577 Angstroms. This emmission line is smack bang in the middle of the green paert of the spectrum, ie not blue green at all. Dr LaPaz would not have known about this line in 1948-1950 as it was only discovered in 1958. eburacum

NPOV

NPOV added. Article is way out of balance. Bubba73 (talk), 14:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed Infobox, NPOV, "Pseudoscience"

What is the basis for any of these other than personal biases? How do you define "pseudoscience"? LaPaz used standard scientific methods for tracking meteors that he had used successfully for 30 years. The guy was one of the world's experts in meteorites and astronomy. He was also an expert mathematician and top theoretician in special relativity. This is an obvious smear to try to paint him as a kook.

As the USAF Directorate of Intelligence noted upon the closing down of Project Twinkle, no satisfactory solution was ever offered:

"The Scientific Advisory Board Secretariat has suggested that this project not be declassified for a variety of reasons, chief among which is that no scientific explanation for any of the ‘fireballs’ and other phenomena was revealed by the (Project Twinkle) report and that some reputable scientists [note plural] still believe that the observed phenomena are man-made."

No satisfactory scientific explanation has been given since then (nonsensical debunking explanations don't count). LaPaz also wasn't alone in his "beliefs" of artificial origins. Remember the "scientistS" in the above quote? One of these was the first director of Project Twinkle, Dr. Anthony Mirarchi, who also agreed with LaPaz. He was so incensed at the public debunkery, that he went public in 1951 and almost got prosecuted for violating his security oath. See Bruce Maccabee's article on this. [3]

In addition, the director of Project Blue Book, Edward J. Ruppelt said that when he went to Los Alamos and spoke to the various scientistS there, almost all of whom had personally seen the green fireballs, they were almost unanimous in believing them NOT to have natural origins but were probably alien probes instead.

So I guess all these people were "pseudo-scientists" as well. Again, I ask on what basis do you label this "pseudoscience"?

Infobox preserved below pending discussion. Dr Fil 00:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Artificial green fireballs

Claims	Mysterious lights seen in 1948 were caused by artificial devices
Related scientific disciplines	Meteorology
Year proposed	1949
Original proponents	Lincoln La Paz
Subsequent proponents	none known
(Overview of pseudoscientific concepts)

• Lack of falsifiable predictions does present a problem with the "artificial" theory. But this article is about the phenomenon and not the "study of strange green fireballs in the sky" ---J.Smith 22:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was fully falsifiable in principle. Among other things, had they been able to find fragments, they could probably have determined one way or another if the material was artificial or natural. Accordingly, LaPaz (who said he hoped they were natural) spent a tremendous amount of time and effort trying to locate fragments, using the same triangulation techniques in which he had a high rate of success in locating meteorite fragments following an ordinary fireball. They were never able to find anything, even though LaPaz, because he was working with military intelligence, had many more resources at his disposal than he usually did.

Falsification might also have been possible through collection of better data. One of the purposes of Project Twinkle was to gather such data by setting up a network of photographic and observation posts to hopefully film, accurately triangulate, and get such things as spectra. Twinkle was never properly funded or fully implemented, with only one or two posts in operation at any time, LaPaz's protests notwithstanding. This wasn't LaPaz's fault. Labeling him a "pseudoscientist" or his theory (supported by some other scientists involved) as "pseudoscience" is nothing but a cheap shot intended to denigrate LaPaz and the subject matter.

I should also like to point out that "falsifiability," while always desirable, is not a necessary part of the scientific method. Inability to falsify does not by itself make something "pseudoscience." If that were the case, many branches of accepted science would immediately become "pseudoscience" because they aren't testable. E.g., there is currently no way to falsify string theory because it has yet to make a testable prediction. Some old school particle physicists argue that this makes it a non-science or pseudoscience, yet most physicists probably feel that this is an extreme view. "Pseudoscience," like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder.Dr Fil 16:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Restore NPOV tag

This article is a total disaster. Virtually the entire page is written from the "ooh arent these green flashes spooky and probably UFO's?!?" POV. there is no attempt at a balanced scientific viewpoint anywhere within. I will begin edits to modify the article shortly. --Deglr6328 06:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My what an intelligent comment. You have made your personal prejudices abundantly clear. But this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. Do you have anything actually, you know, 'factual' to contribute?

The history of the green fireballs and Project Twinkle is extremely well- documented from declassified government documents, including those from the Army, Air Force, and FBI. The histories in the "sources" and "external links" are all directly derived from these documents. Ruppelt, the director of the Air Force's Project Blue Book, devoted an entire chapter of his book on the subject.

Like most "disbelievers," you probably never bothered to read a single one of the already provided source histories and external links. If you had, you would know that the green fireballs were indeed of high concern to Army and Air Force intelligence because of their high concentration over sensitive atomic military installations like Los Alamos and Kirtland. They were indeed scientifically studied by La Paz and other scientists. There were indeed special scientific conferences called at Los Alamos and by the A.F. Scientific Advisory Board to discuss the phenomenon. There were indeed scientists besides La Paz who vehemently disagreed that they were a natural phenomenon and thought them artificial. Read Ruppelt where he discusses his visit with Los Alamos scientists and technicians, nearly all of whom had seen the green fireballs, who were virtually unanimous in their opinion they were extraterrestrial probes.

"ooh arent these green flashes spooky and probably UFO's?" No, the green fireballs weren't dreamed up by gullible UFO believers. This was stuff of great concern to military intelligence and various government scientists. It's all in the documents. Everybody agreed they were a real phenomenon of some kind. Too many intelligence officers and scientists had seem them with their own eyes. Astronomer Clyde Tombaugh had seen them (3 in fact). Later notorious UFO debunker Donald Menzel had seen one. He wrote a letter to the AF Scientific Advisory Board saying so and also admitting he was mystified. What he had seen was not a normal meteor fireball.

Try reading the already-provided references first before endlessly slapping demands for citations every other sentence. I'm playing along for now in the introduction. Highly specific page references are provided. But if you keep playing this pointless citation game, I'm going to start deleting them as totally unnecessary and redundant. Everything in the article is already in the references at the end.

And if you start inserting your mere skeptical opinion into the article claiming you are being more "scientific", you better be prepared to back up each of your statements with an actual scientific reference (not more unsupported opinion from some skeptical magazine you read). I can play the endless citation game too. But what results is an unreadable article cluttered with way too many distracting references. Dr Fil 00:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Reading the history of the article changes more carefully, I notice Deglr6328 did not slap the recent citation requests on the article. My apologies. My experience on other articles is the so-called "scientific skeptics" put up endless demands for citations on subjects they personally believe to be "pseudoscientific." No matter how many citations are provided, they demand more. They almost never bother to read the references already there at the end. They merely assume the material is all made up and never based on anything of substance. Be skeptical if you must, but please read the references first. The material in the article is 100% verifiable. The green fireball phenomenon was not made up by Ufologists. Everything about them comes from government documents or from public commentary of those directly involved. E.g., the subject was written up by LIFE magazine in April 1952. La Paz and Dr. Mariarchi, the first director of Project Twinkle set up to study them, also made statements in newspaper articles during the 1950s. Both disagreed that the green fireballs were natural. Dr Fil 01:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they both disagree - and LaPaz might as well be the subject of this article, as it spends undue amount of time following his actions and perspectives on the phenomena. I doubt he was the only scientific mind at work on this, yet this article even openly defends him at points and casts doubt on the assertions of others. This article is a mess. It claims meteors can't be green - because LaPaz asserted that - but we know that is now false. 2601:87:4400:AF2:84D7:679C:1DA0:C7F6 (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Ball Lightning

I think it's either ball lightning or an asteroid contaning copper. -Realwheels, December 10, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Realwheels (talk • contribs) 16:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Uh... sure. Someone could say its a UFO, another could say its an asteroid, another still could say its lightning. Until a theory is proven, it simply may or may not be true. Opinions don't belong on Wikipedia. :/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.11.233 (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

Ok, I don't really get why this topic is not an average meteor. Is green an abnormal colour in meteors? Also, Some of this isn't NPOV, like "as if that weren't enough".—Preceding unsigned comment added by AstroHurricane001 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wording cited has been changed to "In addition." Intense, saturated, lime-green is an abnormal color in meteors, but there were numerous other reasons cited in the article and references why scientists like La Paz felt these weren't normal meteors: low speed, low, flat trajectory, changes of course, absence of sound, absence of smoke trail, absence of particles despite extensive searches, heavy concentration in one geographical area, etc. Dr Fil 18:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Midgreen is not an abnormal colour in meteors- La Paz was wrong. He simply did not know about the 'forbidden line' ionisation of oxygen which I cited above; here it is again. http://amsmeteors.org/spectra/majdenobs.html Of course this is no reflection on LaPaz's skill, as the forbidden line was only spectrographically detected in the late fifties. Midgreen meteors are actually seen quite often see also here http://www.meteorobs.org/maillist/msg13013.html note that the forbidden line green spectrum has even been detected in Perseid meteors. By placing this nonsense on Wikipedia you are causing observers who see green meteors to suspect that they are seeing unidentified flying objects rather than ordinary meteors. This is a clear case of bias. eburacum 87.102.28.2 (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I just saw one 30 minutes ago in Oregon, USA, it was beautiful. Very very green. I was actually just looking for a page on green meteors when I ended up here.MacroMyco (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This kind of does put the information contained within the article in a new light - LaPaz may not have had the opportunity of knowing - but whomever wrote the article sure did - this article is subtly (or not-so-subtly) biased in favor of LaPaz. Which, honestly, is par for the course on the website when it comes to this type of phenomena. 2601:87:4400:AF2:84D7:679C:1DA0:C7F6 (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Well I’m not sure if meteors can burn green. But I would assume so since copper when heated to the proper temperature does create a green flame. Alloys of copper burn different shades of green depending on the copper content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:80:8400:E9F9:44E1:C27B:7F2F:A4CA (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

my sighting

I had a sighting of a green fireball, in wich it came from a red,white and blue aurua, just wondering if this ment something.(this wasn't the entire sighting, it takes a long time to write about the entire thing.)--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ohio Sighting

I was on my way from toledo to youngstown last night via interstate 80 and seen one that was about 1.5 to 2 inches in diamater at arms length i was just waundering if anyone knew of this instance or could maby tell me more about it i seen it around cleveland around 8:30-9:00--Cmedinger (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Michigan Sighting

On June 30, 2008 at 11:57 p.m. in Swartz Creek, MI. A gigantic green fireball flew from Southeast to Northeast being seen from Seymore Rd. and Bristol Rd. It only lasted about 3-4 seconds. It dispursed into 4 fragments and vanished. 4 minutes later two helicopters flew in its trajectroy. Could have been a meteor, could of been something else, couldn't tell ya. I've seen some crazy stuff, but this is new crazy stuff. Update: 4 July 2009 11:40 P.M. Wasn't green, but I just watched a glowing red/orange orb float aimlessly over Swartz Creek in the same general area as the last sighting. Could be related. Firework spectators?Zxeroluda (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Tombaugh Lapaz 3 3 1954.jpg

The image Image:Tombaugh Lapaz 3 3 1954.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sighting in Stike on trent UK 4th april 2009

I was traveling along the A50 back into stoke on trent when a green Shooting star crossed the sky in front of us. It appered from knowhere glowing bright green as it crossed smaller fragments trailed behind but more the colour of a spark. It moved very fast in quite a horizontal direction. At first it looked like a fire work rocket but the way it burnt out it was definatly a shooting star. Never Seen one like that before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.49.156 (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly relevant material

From 1946 to 1952, the U.S. government sponsored "Project Hermes" [...] aimed at developing borane-based superfuels that would enable aircraft to fly faster, have greater ranges, and carry larger payloads. In 1952 the crash program to produce these fuels was reconfigured into what became the U.S. Navy's "Project Zip" and the U.S. Air Force's "Project HEF" (the latter most likely standing for high-energy fuel). Large numbers of technical personnel were hired for these programs that were so top secret that potential employees could not be told of its exact nature, even what elements were involved, until they reported for work. The goal was to build and fuel a "Chemical Bomber," using derivatives of the higher boranes (principally penta- and decaborane). Two prototypes if the bomber were built and tested. Amazingly, these borane derivatives burn with a green flame and then produce a cloud of boric acid beyond the combustion zone. [...] Soon, however, all these issues became moot as new breakthroughs in radar soon made the Chemical Bomber obsolete, and in 1959 these projects were abandoned.

— Glen E. Rodgers, Descriptive Inorganic, Coordination, and Solid-state Chemistry, Second Edition

Talbycodes (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

South Africa, c.1957

I and many others saw a green fireball from a train at night in the Karoo near De Aar. For perhaps ten seconds it lit up the desert with a brilliant green glow. The display had all the characteristics one might associate with a meteor. Later in life I became a geologist. I remain convinced that the falling object was either (1) a stone containing much nickel or copper or (2) a man-made object containing copper wiring that burned upon re-entry. Captainbeefart (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

LaPaz's further investigations

While LaPaz is very important to green fireballs, is his entire UFO investigative history needed here? The section, "Green fireballs revisited (1965)" could stay, with an added link to Socorro incident, but the rest reads like padding. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Green fireballs. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051029134829/http://user.cs.tu-berlin.de/~thomasg/gf.htm to http://user.cs.tu-berlin.de/~thomasg/gf.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050918112110/http://ufos.about.com/library/weekly/aa080597.htm to http://ufos.about.com/library/weekly/aa080597.htm

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) 13:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Copper in space?

Copper along with many other metals has been observed in meteors. The article makes several assertions that its "rare", this is strange. I'd like to see the source that says it is rare or nonexistent. Dominick ^(TALK) 11:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Green fireballs outside the United States (section)

I am concerned that much of this section is undocumented, including direct quotes from unknown sources. It has been flagged as "citation needed," but without references, there is no verifiability. Should this section be included under these circumstances? Hifrommike65 (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Clean-up attempt

This article is not even close to being encyclopedic, with issues of WP:FRINGE, WP:FRIND, WP:OR, and WP:UNDUE, to name just a few, dominating the entire thing, soup to nuts. The dozens of 'content needed' tags have been here for years. I have begun the slow process of content editing ... JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Good start. There are still too many fringe sources; CUFOS, Project 1947, etc. and Clark, Steiger and Ruppelt are listed as general sources. I haven’t looked for WP:FRIND sources on the topic but I’d be surprised if they didn’t exist. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh sure. My initial search for RS last year revealed nothing, but it was brief, non-exhaustive, and I never got back to the task. See my Talk page for some renewed interest in the topic. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I note that the History Channel writeup on the topic tries hard to emphasize a sensationalist POV, but begrudgingly includes that government investigators concluded that the green fireballs were some kind of never-before-seen natural phenomenon. Interest in, and investigation into, the fireballs dropped off at the outbreak of the Korean War.. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Imo, the article should be rewritten to emphasize what the title says it is, a type of colored fireball, and the UFO aspect just a small paragraph about misdentification. When done, a link should be added from this article to the colours section of Meteoroid#Fireball. I'm just commenting and don't intend to edit. 5Q5|^✉ 11:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

More Disputed plus Wikipedia NPOV

i endorse the observation that this topic is "a mess", but there are three important points to make here.

the first is that "UFO" or "UAP" are real. they are no longer (never were) a "fringe" topic. the U.S. military has taken the issue seriously, the 2022 Defense Authorization Act creates an "Office of UAP Research" within the office of the under secretary of defense for intelligence, Navy pilots have encountereed them frequently and verified them both visually and recorded them with the newest generation of radar, FLIR, and even with cellphone cameras; near air collisions have become such a problem that UFO are officially reported to the pentagon as air hazards, and the DoD is actively working both to collect information about them and to reduce the stigma of reporting them. several "scientific" or fact based organizations, including NARCAP and the Science Coalition for UAP Research, have published well documented, entirely empirical studies of UFO. there is absolutely no substantive, scientific, technical or informational reason to associate UFO with fringe science.

the second is that wikipedia cheerfully allows the citation of sources and the propagation of claims that are themselves blatantly pseudoscientific. there is *no* scientific theory, argument or evidence to support the claim that the "green fireballs" were "sequelae of atomic weapons tests". there is *no* scientific theory, argument or evidence to support the claim that the "green fireballs" were "clouds of nuclear fallout." there is *no* scientific theory, argument or evidence to support the claim that the "green fireballs" were "lunar material ejected from meteor impacts on the Moon's surface". these risible fabrications are historically products of an explicit and programmatic effort at disinformation and propaganda, suppression of information, and lying about the facts orchestrated by a defense/intelligence establishment alarmed at the potential for exploitation of the topic by foreign governments to disturb the U.S. population. by tolerating and even editorially supporting that point of view wikipedia becomes itself an instrument of propaganda.

given all that, the final point is that wikipedia editorial policy needs to reexamine its working premises and this needs to be propagated throughout the relevant editorial staff. in particular, the topic of UFO as observed phenomena and documented event needs to be editorially distinguished from the "extraterrestrial hypothesis" or "interdimensional travel" or "area 51" or "alien corpses" as speculation. these are still unverified by any reputable scientific or journalistic source. do not throw the baby out with the gray bathwater. you spread misinformation and leave your head stuck in the 20th century when you do. Drollere (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the military of some random country does not decide what is real and what is not. The same applies to random organizations that have for some reason chosen to include the word "science" in their names. Instead, reliable sources are the relevant authority.

And new stuff goes to the bottom. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

FBI document on green fireballs

The following is an FBI document on green fireballs.Chantern15 (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Declassified Documents For Project Twinkle Under Project Grudge For Green Fireballs

As seen here:Chantern15 (talk) 07:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Nothing on theblackvault.com is likely to be seen as acceptable under WP:RS criteria. This is a privately-run website, and there is no way to validate the authenticity of its content. Not that it matters much, since we don't base articles on primary source documents anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that that is unfortunate, since the documents on Black Vault come from the government and are backed by the stamps and signatures present on them which highlight their importance. As for primary sources, RSPRIMARY states that they can be used in specific circumstances.Chantern15 (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

I guess you mean "the government" of the country you happen to live in. Why should Wikipedia care about that? Since when have governments been reliable sources? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Not the government of the country I happen to live in, but the government of the United States, from where these documents have been declassified from. If you read the headers of the documents, that's where they come from. This is not an appeal to the authority of the US Government, merely to point out the relevance of this clearance, as sightings in the US, will be relevant to them being covered by the US Government.Chantern15 (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15