Talk:Trinity UFO Case

Presenting narrative as fact

I got a ping on my talk suggest I take a peek at this article. Yay! I've been expecting someone to create an article on this case, thank you! It's very hard to write about history that may or may not have actually occurred, and the current text isn't quite threading the needle, but we'll get there. Feoffer (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I see that @Mcorrlo: partially reverted and partially improved some of the recent changes I made. To discuss:

• Were the occupants not removed by the Army / is there some reason we shouldn't mention that?
• What's the objection to a background section that mentions prior crash stories? Vallee explicitly connects the case after all? Why not mention Vallee's historic role in Ufology and film?
• Why discuss metal testing, which occurred after publication, before we talk about publication?
• Vallee is a reliable source on his own views, but we can't use his views alone to verify supposed historical facts like "Faustino Padilla worked for the WPA" unless we are clear that we're talking about potentially non-factual narrative.
• "It was only in 2003, by simple chance, that the two friends would meet again. " isn't verifiable and isn't really encyclopedic in tone, unless it's part of the potentially-false narrative. How could anyone know if they met 'by simple chance'? We could say that they SAY it was simple chance or something, but we can't report it as a fact.
• Oblivion section reports narrative as fact.
• But also, lot of genuine improvements to my text: "demonstrated discrepancies" -> "alleged discrepancies" is a real improvment, as is "legend" -> "alleged events".

Thanks for writing this article, you put a lot of hard work in. Look forward to working with you. Feoffer (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not want to enter in an editions war. I see your point is just treat the case as a hoax. Why do not you just erase the page? I don´t care.

You use the world ufologist as an insult and generally despise the witnesses. They are all nuts. And who is Brian Dunning? He likes to make personal attacks, but he himself is a crook.

Erase the page please.It is a favor youŕe doing me. Mcorrlo (talk) 07:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

your point is just treat the case as a hoax It's really not. There are cases where we have RSes to show that it's a hoax, even putting hoax in the title -- this isn't one of them. Wikipedia doesn't say this was a hoax.

generally despise the witnesses Why in the world would you think that?!?! I don't know anything about them, least of all the truth behind their story. There are 4,000 distinct religions on planet Earth, if I "despised people" for having different beliefs than me, I'd have to "despise" everyone.

You use the world ufologist as an insult I certainly don't mean to, I thought that's what Vallee and others prefer to be called.

who is Brian Dunning Just a famous skeptic, and we characterize him as such, so his opinion being included shouldn't disturb you. Including one quote from him lets us justify including 22 full paragraphs of material drawn from Vallée & Harris. Feoffer (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Brian Dunning is not just a "famous skeptic", he is also a famous crook. Mcorrlo (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know that (someone else added Dunning to the article, not me). But apparently so! I hope you'll reconsider about that wish that the page just get erased (not how it work, of course, I honestly don't have the ability to get it deleted). It's really just one skeptic with (as you point out) a checkered past. Feoffer (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello Feoffer.

Case closed for me. I'm not interested. I'm going to disconnect me from these and other matters. The Wikipedia edit wars bore me to death. Of course I could avoid them, I'd just have to get away from subjects like religion, especially Islam or Catholicism, politics, ufos, etc., and turn instead to subjects of lana caprina like the latest trendy songs, the latest games of kill 'em all, football, or the “splendid” important and encyclopedic page about Twelves (have you seen it?). Mcorrlo (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Again in this small war

I changed some minor things. I think nowhere is said the army took the insects.

I read somewhere on the internet (unfortunately I don't remember where) that a soldier or a son of one of the soldiers said that he remembered removing the "weather balloon" or "spaceship".Why haven't serious ufologists tried to follow this lead? I have no idea. Mcorrlo (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Your changes look fine to me, thanks for them. a soldier or a son of one of the soldiers said that he remembered removing the "weather balloon" or "spaceship" It sounds to me like you're referring to Jesse Marcel and his son Jesse Marcel Jr. MD, who recalled handling debris from the Roswell incident. Feoffer (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it was something about this Trinity case. But I did not take note! Letś wait if Vallée finds something... Mcorrlo (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Vallee

The entire lavishly detailed Claims by Padilla and Baca section is cited to non-WP:FRIND ufologist proponent Jacques Vallee, and the section reads like an opinion piece authored by Vallee. We really need an independent source for the claims associated with this topic. @User:Feoffer perhaps may have ideas for how to improve this article. 15:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC) - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Why not make the article about the book? Feoffer (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The Vallee book? Has it been reviewed and discussed by independent sources? Is it notable outside the ufology bubble? I just read Brian Dunning's analysis of the claims by Padilla and Baca and it seems the essential topic of the article can be summarized pretty succinctly and tons more encylopedically than the present iteration, which again, seems to be in thrall to Vallee. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Right now it looks like it is about the book, or about the story told in it. But it shouldn't be so heavily sourced on it, and shouldn't include so much cruft. VdSV9•♫ 13:54, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

The Claims by Padilla and Baca section is entirely sourced to Vallee's book Trinity: The Best-Kept Secret. Reference numbers 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13 are all duplicate citations to the book. If there are no WP:FRIND sources that discuss the book's claims, how do we know if they are notable enough for mention, let alone devoting a huge portion of the article to? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I will add that there is criticism of Vallee's book from skeptical blogs, so there could be some rationale for WP:PARITY. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but even with the addition of criticism that massive section still requires considerable reduction. I agree with VdSV9's comment below, that devoting so much content here to Vallee is UNDUE. I encourage you, LL, to have a go at reducing it to an appropriate size - I can help with that process. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

LL: It looks like you already have. Thanks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I haven't yet touched the Claims by Padilla and Baca section, but I may do a trim. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

OK, here's a revised version that doesn't try so hard to make Vallee the default expert source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Much better - thanks for all that work. I'm still thinking that the entirety of the second paragraph of Trinity: The Best-Kept Secret can be removed, as none of that content seems due/significant/notable/widely reported/etc. Given the source, is there a compelling reason to retain it? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

There is no policy-based justification for keeping detail from the Vallee book that hasn't been discussed in independent sources. However my personal feeling is that leaving a few details that are well known in saucer literature is an insurance policy against later bombardment and disruption by those seeking to remedy perceived censorship. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, the second para contains the "being warned not to talk about it" by parents and military detail - a key element of the UFO conspiracy theory which can't be adequately attributed to the FRIND sources. Hence Vallee's book is cited. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

OK. As policies go I suppose it's always a fine idea to carry some insurance. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Criticism "and responses"

About the recent back and forth, with my removing of Vallee's response to criticism and MonkeeSage adding it back again and so on.

Adding to the sourcing issue, pointed out by LuckyLouie:

• Criticism sections (to the point we allow them to exist) aren't supposed to be these "back and forth" debate-like things.
• Giving space to Vallee's fallacies in this way is completely UNDUE.

VdSV9•♫ 13:51, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I originally added the quotes from Dean Johnson's reporting because Dunning relies it for his conclusions (he specifically links to it in his Skeptoid article), which are a series of exposés and refutations of the claims in the Vallé/Harris book. Those claims made up the central part of the article at the time. So it seemed relevant to cite the original sources of Dunning's criticism. I included the responses from Vallé to Johnson's reporting from Harris' website because they were direct replies to Johnson's reporting.

I reverted the edit (only once) because I didn't see the discussion here and just saw the edit message "removing all this valle nonsense" which I assumed was a troll edit. My apologies. » MonkeeSage « 22:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)