Talk:Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program

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

UFO

Unexplained aerial phenomena redirects to Unidentified flying object. UFO is what these things are called, officially and by the media. This program was created by people who thought aliens were responsible for these things. So UFO should be used in the article. Dream Focus 14:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

"unclassified but unpublicized investigatory effort"

The phrase "unclassified but unpublicized investigatory effort" needs emendation. Cmdr. Fravor, in his interview with Joe Rogan (), states that elizondo (whom Fravor confirms was running AATIP) told him that AATIP was exempt from FOIA document searches. When "unpublicized" means "we don't tell anyone that it exists" then "unclassified" becomes moot. you don't know it's there is always the necessary attribute of "secret". elizondo had to resign and then go to the NY Times to make it public. "unknown" is better, and so emended.

an edit i made to clarify further was reverted by user "LuckyLouie". my edit read: "unclassified and unpublicized" (and exempt from FOIA reporting requirements[1]) and the cite refers to the joe rogan interview at the place where this discussion occurs. the discussion expands on the fact that fravor himself did not know the report existed. the point here is that because the program was unclassified then unclassified means technically it could be talked about publicly without ramifications; but if talked about nothing could be learned about it through a FOIA inquiry. and the point illustrates the rather byzantine methods used by DoD to shield what was being done from scrutiny. i suggest LuckyLouie justify the revert before i change the text again. Drollere (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ&t=1310s

Some article material

Greetings


I could not help but to notice that the article was missing some further information about what the program found that I felt deserved to be mentioned, wherefore I thought I would supply with some proposed content that could perhaps be included.

The first material comes from the military Intelligence official and director Luis Elizondo, who ran the program, saying in a recent live interview with CNN the following, which I think is very noteworthy in this context: "I think what's important is that we have identified some very, very anomalous types of aircraft. Let's call them aircraft. Things that don't have any obvious flight services, any obvious forms of propulsion, and maneuvering in ways that include extreme maneuverability beyond, I would submit, the healthy G-forces of a human or anything biological. Hypersonic velocities, low observability, positive lift. Again seemingly defying the laws of aerodynamics. I will tell you unequivocally that through the observation, scientific methodologies were applied to look at this phenomenon, that these aircrafts are displaying charactaristics that are not currently within US inventory, nor within any foreign inventory that we are aware of. (....) There is very compelling evidence that we may not be alone, whatever that means" Link to interview: http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/18/politics/luis-elizondo-ufo-pentagon/index.html

Further, in the article in NYTimes we can read; "Under Mr. Bigelow’s direction, the company modified buildings in Las Vegas for the storage of metal alloys and other materials that Mr. Elizondo and program contractors said had been recovered from unidentified aerial phenomena. Researchers also studied people who said they had experienced physical effects from encounters with the objects and examined them for any physiological changes. In addition, researchers spoke to military service members who had reported sightings of strange aircraft."

And, a final outdraft from the same article; "A 2009 Pentagon briefing summary of the program prepared by its director at the time asserted that “what was considered science fiction is now science fact,” and that the United States was incapable of defending itself against some of the technologies discovered." Link to article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html

Certainly these are quite extraordinary revelations which no doubt deserves to be mentioned in the article, especially as they are coming from what certainly must be considered reliable sources and not fringe? Okama-San (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources

I'm having no luck locating any official documents related to Luis Elizondo, or the text of his resignation letter. Also, I haven't found any official mention of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program or AATIP in any DoD or Government websites. If anybody is able to find authentic primary sources, it would significantly add to the credibility of this article. Hadron137 (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NYT presumably has both, given the fact they judged the story credible enough to run, and reported they'd been researching the story for several months. Outside of Google, a quick email to the reporter who authored the story might turn up those sources.
— Apollonaut📞 02:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The more we learn about this, the dodgier it looks: http://badufos.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/to-stars-releases-another-video-and.html Skeptic2 (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And here: https://www.cnet.com/news/ufo-navy-airplane-video-skeptics-weigh-in-to-the-stars/ Skeptic2 (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NYT can print a retraction if they learn their reporting was wrong, but they haven't. I'm going to go with their credibility over the Intercept (who seems to be the original source of skepticism over Elizondo's involvement) or others that don't have that kind of prestige. According to the Times: "So how does a story on U.F.O.s get into The New York Times? Not easily, and only after a great deal of vetting, I assure you." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/18/insider/secret-pentagon-ufo-program.html That said, it doesn't mean he should be taken at his word on everything. Who knows his motivations, regardless of his former position? Nobody but him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soul schizm (talk • contribs) 15:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation of Luis Elizondo's involvement in and leadership of AATIP comes from harry reid himself, via NBC reporter gadi schwartz, here: https://twitter.com/GadiNBC/status/1386872125835812864

the effort by DoD to discredit elizondo is obviously part of an effort to limit future disclosures.

Confirmation

As of 05/22/2019, the Pentagon has officially acknowledged that the AATIP was real, was specifically a UAP study program, and that it continues to study UAP. To clarify what is meant by UAP, these are objects that are confirmed to defy all conventional explanations, and failed to be identified by the most well funded military in the world. When a case gets to AATIP, it has to satisfy 5 observable features that completely rule out conventional explanations.

https://nypost.com/2019/05/22/the-pentagon-finally-admits-it-investigates-ufos/ 184.160.110.236 (talk) 03:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this is incorrect on two counts. the AATIP does not continue to study UAP; it was shut down and reincarnated in August 14, 2020 as the UAPTF or UAP Task Force. identification of UAP does not require it satisfy all 5 observable features -- it doesn't have to show hypervelocity and transmedium travel if it shows an unexplained agility, lift and cloaking.

Popular Mechanics article as a source

So, I did a little copyediting on the recently-added material [1] sourced to an article in Popular Mechanics entitled "Inside the Pentagon's Secret UFO Program" [2]. This is the banner of the Pop Mech article:

"Now, after two years of scant details and a myriad of contradictory statements, Popular Mechanics is ripping open the U.S. government’s massive UFO problem. What follows is a deep, unprecedented well of information that’s only been known by a very small select group of insiders —— until now."

I found the article surprisingly hyperbolic and

WP:SENSATIONAL for a Pop Mech article, but then again, I recall the magazine from the 60s and 70s, so I suppose it has changed to suit the clickbait publishing climate of today. Note that it's a very long article, filled with many, many quotes. Depending on which quote you picked, you could make it sound like the article is saying anything. Which, to me, makes it less-than-useful as a source. However I'll leave it in, and see what others think. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

They claim it was a "yearlong investigation" and definitely went out of their way to check sources given the amount of material and witnesses mentioned. Seems hard for me to definite it anything other than a balanced and well sourced article from a reputable source.
However I think the change in copy you made in the article cherrypicks sentences and unfairly depicts the main content of the source. The report is not about supposed contract irregularities or inefficiencies of spending. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LuckyLouie has found the most straightforward point in a very unbalanced article. I think it works pretty well.
WP:SENSATIONAL needs to be respected and we will do so here. jps (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Who has called the balance of the article into question? Do you have a source making that statement? What is
WP:SENSATIONAL about the article? Could you point out examples? Thanks. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The article is unbalanced probably because the journalist failed to look into the
WP:ADVOCACY or, rather, maybe you're just not well informed on these matters. jps (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
How about we wait for any new contributions and see what they think. We are standing at a 2vs2 at the moment. Otherwise we can ask for
WP:SENSATIONAL and unbalanced. I see it supported by several other sources published on reputable outlets (an example in my last edit to the page), interviewing several direct new witnesses, and including substantial supporting evidence. What do you think? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Decisions are not made at this website by counting the number of participants who agree with (a) or (b). That said, a

third opinion is perfectly fine with me. Go ahead and request one. jps (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Since more than 2 editors are involved
WP:DRN should be used. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Up to you. Just so you know, third opinion can be requested regardless of the number of discussants. I don't think

WP:RfC, please post some sample wording here first so we can make sure we agree it is neutral. jps (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Speaking of cherrypicking quotations, the one in the History section taken from Benjamin Radford's article ("Newly Revealed Secret DoD 'UFO' Project Less Than Meets the Eye") is inexplicably limited to mentioning only "videos of military jets encountering something they couldn't identify" and ignoring his critical evaluation. When I get time, I'll be looking into remedying that issue, among other things. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can't read article...paywall unfortunately. But I agree the quote in the page seems disconnected from the title. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the stars... entertainment company.

The description of

WP:POV but this is not supported by the 28 sources here: To the Stars (company). What sources state this is false? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Preventing criticism of the company from appearing in the text...removing mention of it as an entertainment company. Your edits are clearly
WP:ADVOCACY. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Hey User:LuckyLouie, which criticism of the company have I removed? The company is not JUST an entertainment company. So why is pointing out that division specifically relevant to an aerospace related article and especially in the lead? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@LuckyLouie: I think you were referring to the Benjamin Radford quotes criticising the videos (not the company). You have reverted them so they are back in. I think they are unnecessary as they are disproven by the sentences that follow but if you like them... I just think it's a bit unfair to Mr. Radford that looks clueless like this (the publication of the article precedes official confirmation by Navy and Pentagon).--Gtoffoletto (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources identify it as an entertainment company. That you think it is more is immaterial. We don't have sources that say it is more than that. We only have the people who run the company's own fantasies of doing "real science". jps (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vice reported that the company's "partnership with the U.S. Army may mean that it fancies itself as a military contractor." and that the organization "swings between being contenders for military contracts and a UFO research organization".[3]. We can consider them a
WP:FRINGE and unreliable source (I disagree as they focus on fringe topics but seem to apply the scientific method to their work.) but not JUST an "entertainment company" as it clearly isn't. It has contracts with the US army for technology research. See article for more sources. Do we agree?--Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The Vice source doesn't identify what kind of company they are. They only describe the sorts of fantasies with which they engage. The sources we do have which describe what kind of company they are all indicate that the company is an entertainment company. Your own

original research that seems to indicate to you that they are not is irrelevant here. jps (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@ජපස: You consider a government contract a fantasy? In any case the description is preposterous. A couple of sources for you (since you don't seem to be reading the ones included in the article yourself. Those discussions are really tiring, time consuming and useless since all sources are available to you.).
  • US ARMY:"They have made technical claims that have interested us." "The group is best known for releasing widely publicized and authenticated Navy fighter jet cockpit videos" Bloomberg Government
  • "Other divisions at TTSA focus on new technology. On Oct. 17, TTSA representatives announced that the group had entered into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command" Live Science
  • "To the Stars Academy of Arts & Sciences. Founded in 2017, it is run by a team of 12, including several former government employees, who try to advance society’s understanding of scientific phenomena through the lenses of entertainment, science and aerospace." New York Times
  • (later addition) one more not from the article with emphasis mine: "The 35-second video, released by the privately owned media and scientific research company To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science, is the latest to suggest the existence of hovering egg-shaped vessels since the Pentagon in December publicly acknowledged a program dedicated to the study of unidentified flying objects." Washington Post
Should I continue? This seems stupid as the sources are all in the article. Let's stop wasting time with this across multiple articles please.
Compromise: call them "UFO research group"? "company focusing on UFO research"? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
UFO research is a euphemism for wild-eyed credulity surrounding UFOs. Not acceptable. jps (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What? If you prefer we can go with the Washington Post's "privately owned media and scientific research company" then. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. We can go with what we presently have. jps (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've presented sources. You haven't. It doesn't matter what your personal opinions are if no sources support your statements. You have already reverted three times. Let's avoid a frivolous edit war. I appreciate your contributions but please engage in
WP:CIVIL discussion and express your criticism in a constructive way. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Our article is fine and has all the sources we need. jps (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[4] We use independent sources. And they say it’s an entertainment company. -LuckyLouie (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post isn't independent? Bloomberg Government? I'm trying to review your source but it's not freely readable. It's a reprint of something else? I can see the intro that states: It was founded by a rock musician named Tom DeLonge, formerly of the band Blink-182, who describes TTSA as an "independent multimedia entertainment company." Not sure where that statement comes from but it doesn't seem an independent assessment. Rather hearsay from Delonge (said when? where?) while the Washington Post above is actually giving their independent assessment. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hearsay would not apply to the fucking founder of the company. jps (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the profanity. You are in contradiction. We either LISTEN to what Delonge and TTSA say or we don't. If WE DO. Their website is clear: they have media, science and aeropace divisions: The company’s Science Division is a theoretical and experimental laboratory that seeks to challenge conventional thinking and discover the next-generation of physics. The company’s Aerospace Division is dedicated to finding revolutionary breakthroughs in propulsion, energy, and communicationThe Entertainment Division is composed of the company’s wholly-owned subsidiary To The Stars. The Delonge quote reported above lacks context, date, and should be discarded. All other sources (there are over 29 in the TTSA article on wiki) state that TTSA has 3 divisions not just media.
Another source: Popular mechanics uses the same exact wording I have proposed above. I think it is the most appropriate description: The U.S. Army has joined To The Stars Academy of Arts and Science, a UFO research group, to investigate UFO technology.[5]--Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See
WP:SYNTH. You want to ignore what our sources say about the company when it suits you. We know it was founded as an entertainment company. That's fine. jps (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Once again: what sources? You just admitted as is clear to any rational person that the company was founded as an entertainment company The company isn't just an entertainment company since 2017 (it started other divisions BEFORE disclosing those documents). I see you are modifying other pages too (with typos that demonstrate how carefully you are considering those rage edits). Are you willing to start a RfC on this? If so, go ahead after posting the request for consensus. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop personalizing things. Some of what you contribute is valuable. A lot of it comes from a credulity that beggars belief, but as long as you stay calm we'll get to a good place! jps (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you are willing to compromise (although personally attacking me once more). I think the same about your own contributions (I've thanked you publicly many times) and I think when we collaborate the result is much improved. I have nothing against you personally (although you may feel that way). All I care about is the final result on the page (and all related pages you have edited similarly). Propose a compromise and I will gladly consider it or proceed with an RfC. Your choice. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes compromise is not possible. We are guided by
WP:NPOV, etc. I think you have to give up this one. jps (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Your statements are factually and demonstrably false as I'm sure you are aware. I don't think you agree with yourself either. So you choose to make an RfC out of this? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. We're done here. You have no leg on which to stand. jps (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SEC filing: "The company is composed of Aerospace, Science, and Entertainment Divisions." Google "to the stars" sec filing. Officially, To The Stars Academy of Arts and Sciences is a public benefit corporation with an entertainment division. The entertainment division, a company called To The Stars, Inc. is not equivalent to the parent corporation. It was an existing company according to the filing and was not founded at the same time, as the intro incorrectly states. 5Q5|✉ 16:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, our sources say what they say. Until there is a correction posted, our hands are tied. jps (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can just remove the designate: [6] jps (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being reasonable. The consensus therefore is to call them just "a public-benefit corporation" avoiding contentious labels. I agree. Readers can make up their own mind. I see you have edited also other relevant pages. I look forward to collaborating more productively. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It now reads better without the entertainment reference. Since this article is about a U.S. Dept of Defense program, it is worth pointing out that the DOD also has its own in-house entertainment agency called Armed Forces Entertainment, which doesn't detract from the DOD's other missions. Additional info: USAF Entertainment Liaison Office, DOD Hollywood liaison list, Public affairs (military) (DOD). With editor jps's edit, it looks like this issue is now resolved. 5Q5|✉ 15:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We have consensus I think and interesting links! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biased

The Pentagon has officially released material. According to them they still ARE unidentified (And a lot of research is classified). But in this article there is a "sceptics" bias. They claim to have the explanation already. But that is not true.

“After a thorough review, the department has determined that the authorized release of these unclassified videos does not reveal any sensitive capabilities or systems, and does not impinge on any subsequent investigations of military air space incursions by unidentified aerial phenomena, (...) the aerial phenomena observed in the videos remain characterized as ‘unidentified’''”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/27/pentagon-releases-three-ufo-videos-taken-by-us-navy-pilots https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/27/politics/pentagon-ufo-videos/index.html

So why not stay neutral instead of the old sceptics story of "we have the explanation and all others are wrong".

KingOneBozz (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KingOneBozz: more editors are needed on this page to balance some systemic bias I am afraid. Please participate in the discussions, add the page to your watch list and edit the page if you see something you think could be improved. Do you have any specific issues? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 13:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Keep this neutral. Unidentified is unidentified. Misty MH (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of
Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Task Force into Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus to merge and discussion stale; distinct programs. Klbrain (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Task Force program, what original content there is can easily be contained in a section of Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program. I'm equally open to merging AATIP into UAPTF if that makes more sense. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The NYT source describes the task force as a "unit" and "program." Livescience also says "program," as does some local Fox news station and Popular Mechanics.
💬💬) 20:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
And in conventional usage "task force" refers to a group/program/unit/whatever intended to have a temporary existence. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Merge per convincing above rationale. —PaleoNeonate – 19:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The UAPTF is part of the US Navy, a totally different organization from the Defense Intelligence Agency that ran the AATIP. Moreover this news report states that the UAPTF was only established earlier this month, leaving a clear eight years without either in existence. They need to be treated as such first and foremost. The fact that informal activities kept going in the interim is neither here nor there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide (1) any RS that explicitly identifies the UAPTF as being, as you write, "part of the US Navy," as opposed to the DoD, and (2) any RS that distinguishes the UAPTF and AATIP in any manner other than their names and respective dates of operation? I am unable to find any such sources. Thanks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does this help? From Politico, "The Department of the Navy, under the cognizance of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security, will lead the UAPTF." Also from same article The new high-level attention was heralded by Lue Elizondo, who was involved in a previous Pentagon UFO research program known as the Advanced Aerospace Threat Intelligence Program, or AATIP, that was wound down in 2012. "This is precisely the intended result of what we were trying to achieve under AATIP," Elizondo told POLITICO Schazjmd (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JoJo Anthrax: You could try following the link I already posted. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Steelpillow:Thanks for the reply. I did follow the link you provided. It was based upon that reading that I asked for the additional RS, because nowhere in that brief article does it state that the UAPTF is, as you wrote, "part of the US Navy" (indeed, the second sentence of that article indicates otherwise) and it does not provide any information, other than the names and dates, that indicates significant distinctions between the AATIP and UAPTF. Thanks to User:Schazjmd for addressing the first point. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JoJo Anthrax: Ah, sorry, it helps if one reads the links one posts before adjuring others to [embarrassed icon]; "similar" is not overly-specific, is it. Try this official release from the DoD: "On Aug. 4, 2020, Deputy Secretary of Defense David L. Norquist approved the establishment of an Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) Task Force (UAPTF). The Department of the Navy, under the cognizance of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security, will lead the UAPTF." — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I quite like the DoD's use of the phrase "under the cognizance." JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. Misty MH (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - Two separate programs. I see no consensus for a merge, and seeing the last !vote in support was nearly two months ago, suggest that the proposer or an uninvolved party close. Jusdafax (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Successor program" Typo? – "AATP" under "Successor program"

Is "AATP" under "Successor program" a typo and supposed to say "AATIP"? I tried to find the author of that, but seemed to miss it. Misty MH (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaked videos were released by the Pentagon

The three leaked videos were released by the Pentagon/Navy, a while back. I believe this should be added to the article, and cited. Example articles about it:

"Pentagon officially releases UFO videos" By Michael Conte, CNN. "Updated 4:15 AM ET, Wed April 29, 2020" https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/27/politics/pentagon-ufo-videos/index.html

"Newly released incident reports detail US Navy's 'UFO' encounters" By Ryan Browne and Michael Conte, CNN. "Updated 0227 GMT (1027 HKT) May 14, 2020" https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/13/politics/navy-ufo-incident-reports/index.html

"Statement by the Department of Defense on the Release of Historical Navy Videos APRIL 27, 2020" https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2165713/statement-by-the-department-of-defense-on-the-release-of-historical-navy-videos/

The release of these UFO/UPA videos on the Navy Website were super-low-resolution, at this link with these titles:

"FLIR.mp4

Video - FLIR.mp4 - Please download"

"GOFAST.wmv

Video - GOFAST.wmv"

"GIMBAL.wmv

Video - Gimbal.wmv"

SOURCE: NAVAIR - FOIA "Document Library" https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/documents

I am guessing a higher-resolution copy of these can be found through the To The Stars Academy (TTSA), because those at the Navy site were terrible. Misty MH (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already covered at
WP:COPYVIO for why we can’t use videos from TTSA. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Regarding "Official sources contradict editorial content cited"

Dani Dupont, you applied tags to the article, stating in your edit summary "Official sources contradict editorial content cited". Please expand on that here on the Talk page so other editors can understand your objections and address them. Which "official sources"? What are those "official sources" saying that is contradicted by the article? Schazjmd (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited the article and removed the tags. Jusdafax (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This program probably did not exist

There is a pretty convincing investigative reporting going on that identifies AAWSAP as the program and AATIP as the nickname. Normally, I would not countenance the New York Post to do a good job like this, but the sources they cite for this are pretty convincing and align a bit better with the connections to Skinwalker Ranch, the peculiar relationship between Robert Bigelow and Harry Reid, etc.: [7]

I think Wikipedia may need to figure out what to do here, and this article may be problematically aping incorrect claims or emphasizing things that were introduced in the infamous New York Times article by less-than-unbiased actors.

jps (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can know for certain that the program existed, at least not as a well-defined program as opposed to a nickname. We should probably switch to explicitly sourcing claims about its existence to NYT et al. Feoffer (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATT is going to have to be the name of the game. "According to ABC,..." It's going to be pretty yucky. jps (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
There's some non-New York Post treatments of the story out there [8] [9] and I'm sure more comprehensive coverage from high quality sources will be forthcoming. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Reid really comes out looking like the one responsible for talking out of both sides of his mouth. I would love it if someone would do a deep dive into how this may have dovetailed with his particular flavor of Mormonism, but that's probably asking for too much. RIP. jps (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Section removed

User:LuckyLouie very disingenously removed a section I had added, to clarify the confusion surrounding the names AATIP and AAWSAP, under the pretext that the source was the New York Post, even though the information is completely uncontroversial and to my knowledge not disputed by anyone. I'll leave the link to the section here as background information for any editors who might find it useful. Anders Feder (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no pretext. The material might actually be helpful for the article, but for the kind of
WP:NYPOST YouTube post. That we are citing Skinwalker Ranch/UFO grifters Hal Putoff, George Knapp and Colm Kelleher for something supposedly uncontroversial isn't a good idea. If it's uncontroversial information, it should be available from less fringe-tinted sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:NYPOST. There's no carve-out for "uncontroversial" or "not disputed" content; just don't use the New York Post. Schazjmd (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Congress Hearings

We have all seen the Congressional hearings recently, where reliable witness testimony was given (under oath) confirming the existence of secret programmes set up by the goverment to these private companies. We need to stop using the New York post as reference points, even if the information is valid! Kingsman1984 (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@
here. - wolf 20:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Advanced_Aerospace_Threat_Identification_Program&oldid=1221304873"