Talk:Aurora, Texas, UFO incident

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

Was the well a site of an accident?[edit]

The supposed UFO crash site was the windmill and well where an explosion occurred.

An alternative explanation for the explosion might have been a natural gas leak. Aurora is in Wise County, Texas which is part of the core area of the Barnett Shale formation where one would expect to encounter gas or oil if one drilled a well deep enough. There could conceivably be some seepage to the surface. An enclosed well would permit gases to accumulate and some spark might set off an explosion.

Oil well drilling in the US was started by Edwin Drake in 1858.

A terrestrial explanation or accident would be more likely than an UFO incident and would have to be ruled out as a possibility. --Jbergquist 05:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs overhaul...[edit]

So, the way this reads now, there is possible alien DNA that has been collected and analyzed, and the apparent revelation that alien ships are mostly aluminum. the POV here is blatant. I'm going to try to qualify some of these statements. If anyone has any corroborating references that aren't from MUFON, by all means.... Messiahxi (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

after perusing the MUFON report, much of the second paragraph seemed outright wrong. I ended up deleting most of what was in there. For example, the word "DNA" does NOT appear anywhere in the 200 page document. Full disclosure: I did not (and probably will not) read the entire 200 pages, so if I missed something please correct me. But I'm not convinced that MUFON qualifies as WP:Reliable, in which case this entire section should be removed, since their report is the only source cited. Thoughts? Messiahxi (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MUFON, is one of the oldest and largest UFO investigative organizations in the United States. Plus that 200-page report used citations from multiple sources and for that reason alone is a very good source to use as a citation for this article and since I have time to read the 200-page report, I am on a 2-week holiday, and I am currently writing a screenplay on the subject matter I will see where I can use it to further expand this article. Plus I've started looking for other sources to use for citations. Nhl4hamilton (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations & References[edit]

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alienware Aurora[edit]

Is that related to this at all? Alienware has Aurora computers, I guess that's "Popular culture"? 72.86.49.220 (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora[edit]

I remember following this as a kid in the Dallas area. The Dallas Morning News had a whole series on the story as it unfolded. I recall that they did discover the marker at the cemetery and did a core sample which revealed the same metal (analysis) as was found near the crash site at the old windmil. The story drops off after a judge refused to grant an exhumation order. There were several "old timers" interviewed who claim to have seen the body recovered. Most of whom stated "that it was not of this world". Would've been interesting to see what they would've found back in '73 though. Like I said, I followed it until the last articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.237.110.2 (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could some answer me, this?[edit]

Why can't they just dig up the grave? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.172.207 (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the local authorities will not allow it. They can not get a judge to sign an exhumation order which is what you need to legally dig up a grave. Sf46 (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brammars qualifications[edit]

--Beachedkarma (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)I remember her as a junior highschool teacher at a small school . What qualifies her on this subject as an expert?[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aurora, Texas, UFO incident. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aurora, Texas, UFO incident. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DEAD LINKS ON ARTICLE[edit]

DELETED THE DEAD LINKS AND THE LINKS DO NOT OPEN ON INTERNET ARCHIVE FOR THE RECORD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.26.89 (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and UFO Hunters[edit]

UFO Hunters is paranormal pseudoscience, yet there is a section dedicated to an "investigation" conducted by the show. The section contains claims made only by UFO Hunters and not verified by any external source. UFO Hunters was a History Channel show from 2008-2009 with dubious credibility and should not be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamianeditor (talk • contribs) 02:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Yet an opposing finding by the notable Monster Talk podcast keeps getting deleted. Mindme (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Mindme: I am continuing to assume good faith, but despite being asked to do so, you still haven't provided an explicit link to a source for your desired content. Just writing that someone said something on Monster Talk is insufficient, just as it is insufficient to write something along the lines of "The New York Times published an article that reported blah" if a linked citation to that particular NYT article is not included. It is your job, as the editor adding the content, to provide a link to the source from which the content is derived. Please do so, or the content will continue to be removed. If you do not know how to add sources to WP articles, please read this. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless wiki has changed, I cannot link to this notable podcast Monster Talk and the work of Jerry Drake regarding the well. This is Jerry's findings regarding the well that clearly challenges and balances the findings of a History channel show. youtu.be /SYC-LP0FBU8?si=iW1NapkTHxM3wZDp&t=2959
Mindme (talk) Mindme (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If content can not be supported by an explicit source, the content becomes original research and can't be used. End of story. Linking to a Wikipedia page, regardless of the subject's "notability," is insufficient. I do hope you can find a reliable source for your desired content. Until then, please do not edit war the content back in (see WP:EW). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Space ship hit the windmill[edit]

So the space ship hit the windmill and explodes ?, traveled from another planet but was allergic to wooden planks, was it made from glass or something ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.48.106.158 (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My best guess is that if the UFO was plane-style, it would have hit the windmill, nosedived, and crashed (See planes hitting power lines), which is known to sometimes kill the occupants. If the UFO was airship style, then it could have torn the envelope open and caused the airship to fall, or just caused a spark, causing an explosion. (See Hindenburg)
I don't know where you got the "allergic to wood" thing from. You don't have to be allergic to planes to die from plane crashes.SqueakSquawk4 (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aurora,_Texas,_UFO_incident&oldid=1205498218"