Talk:Berwyn Mountain UFO incident

This article has been cited in the Western Mail: [1], making it sound like original research. The claims in the article need to be referenced properly. Gareth 09:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. There is not one specific reference in the entire article. Must have been a slow day on the Western Mail newsdesk... Pennywisepeter 09:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, the version uploaded in October 2006 was based on original research by Roger Musson of the British Geological Survey, and his technical paper published in 2006 is top of the list of references (unfortunately unavailable online). Dr Musson's version was, I think, fair and balanced but the entry seems to have since been re-edited by the Andy Roberts fan club. IanR.

Andy Roberts consulted many documents to reach his conclusions, including documents from the British Geological Survey. Dr Roger Musson oversees these documents and despite Roberts referring to them in his Berwyn musings, Musson has denied to enquirers that such documents exist. On at least one occasion, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and a following appeal, Musson was forced to hand over documents he had denied existed. He attempted to thwart access to the documents to deny researchers the opportunity to note how Andy Roberts had twisted the evidence to debunk the Berwyn event.

The main page claims it's fact, this is a complex event produced by a coincidence involving an earthquake, a meteor shower and poachers lights. It goes on to say, had a space body produced the 3.5 magnitude tremor it would have produced a visible crater. One word: "Tunguska!" The Tunguska event had an earthquake that dwarfed this one and still produced no crater. This is not to say that the objects in either case were space bodies. It could be said that some of the witnesses in both cases described objects that did not conform to more than phenomena. There's no facts! (User: Nosut 12:32, 20 March 2007)

The main page is titled the Berwyn Mountain Ufo Incident but doesn't mention what the witnesses claimed to of seen. At the web sight below you can listen to a witness by the name of Pat Evans, a local nurse. She claimed with her daughters, they saw a glowing orange ball. I think this should be stated on the main page. http://www.thewhyfiles.net/berwyn_mountain_Incident.html (User: Nosut 18:30, 23 March 2007)

But then you should also report that the lights she saw have been identified as from poachers: http://www.uk-ufo.org/condign/berwart6.htm Skeptic2 (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I’m not so sure. It would not be the first time mysterious beams of light have been reported alongside earthquakes. http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF0/083.html I think this should be noted on the main page as an alternative. User: Nosut 11:25, 9/1/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosut (talk • contribs) 11:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

"Lets see how many times Pat Evens is mentioned...UM....."Zero!" And now lets see how many times the author "Andy J. Roberts".. who saw nothing is mentioned........? "Six times!" "It's easier to miss something that was there, than it is to see something that wasn't. Pat Evens saw what she said she saw. (User Nosut 21:30 14/4/07).

With speculation removed what's left is something that has striking similarities to this event: http://www.iris.edu/news/IRISnewsletter/fallnews/senate.html I think this event should be mentioned on the main page for this reason. (User Nosut 1.05 23/12/07).

Alas the original version of this entry has been vandalized/POV'd to hell... if you want to reinstate it then please provide a better rationale than it's two years old. Skeptic2 (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, you have it backwards... reverting 2 years of active editing will take more rationale than "This is now so messed up." The older version you reverted to was more POV and had more spam than the current one anyway. NJGW (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would very much dispute that. The original version was based on an article by a scientist from the British Geological Survey published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. In other words, it was a factual article by a reputable scientist with a reliable reference, which surely is what Wikipedia (or any reputable reference book) is all about. There are, I agree, a few dodgy references that had subsequently been fixed and which I was about to clean up before you jumped in at a moment's notice. In my view, the only way to fix what had gone wrong with the entry, as you demand, was to go back to the original and start again. You'll be aware on review of the history of this entry that at least one individual and a local special-interest group have written themselves into the story with little in the way of reliable references to back them up. Unfortunately your reversion of my change appears to endorse such behaviour, which is of course the weakness of Wikipedia., Your comments, please. Skeptic2 (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

What specifically is wrong with the current version? What happened in between is irrelevant as we are only talking about what exists now. NJGW (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Small error (unless it's my poor grammer). It reads "The Berwyn Mountain Incident is the second most well known British "UFO crash", after the Rendlesham Forest Incident". Rendlesham Forest is not known for a ufo crash. (User Nosut 16.00, 17th May 09) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosut (talk • contribs) 15:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply