It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


shapeshifting UFO

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 11 2005 @ 02:10 AM
hey guys. all this time at ATS and i never shared this story. i guess it wasnt until fully absorbing ATS that i realize i had a story.

novemberish 1995, when i was 11 years old my family moved from Sacramento California to Heidelberg Germany. on one of the ajoining flights i got a window seat sitting next to a stranger. the guy was friendly, and he said he worked on the jurrasic park set. said he helped build the big dinosaur models. he even showed a picture of himself next to TRex. anyways, i remember looking out the window to see something completely out of place.

nice sunnyshine day and billowy clouds as expected, but off the wing (im guessing @ 300 meters) was this nearly pitch dark cloud. it was thick, and isolated from the other clouds. it was this one little dark cloud in all those giant marshmellows. i call it a 'cloud' because it changed shape. it did not, however, dissapate like a cloud. for the most part it was elongated, but it would get thicker, thinner, longer, shorter, but maintaned its basic shape. when i couldnt figure out what it was i asked JurassicPark, and he was clueless too. we just stared for a while and left it at that. i specifically remember saying "it looks like a giant flag, or sheet flapping in the wind. of course, i knew that a 'flag' doesnt flap in the wind without being fixed to something. sure, a kite can get swept up in the sky, but it wont get far enough away to fly with the airplanes. well, after puzzling for a while, we neverminded the thing and on went our lives. i know im not crazy, because TRex corraborated this experience. of course he was just a stranger, and I dont know his name - or where he is.

oh well, thought i would share. i no longer think it was a 'lone dark cloud' but rather something really advanced.

can anyone relate?

posted on May, 11 2005 @ 03:23 AM
I haven't seen something like that in person, but there are a few videos out there of UFOs that appear to change shape. I've also read other reports of shapeshifting UFOs. Though for this post, I'm only going to point out some video footage.

The most famous such video is the allegedly leaked video from Nellis AFB first shown to the public in early 1995. The link below includes tons of information and the video of the event.

Anthony Woods of Bedhamption, UK videotaped numerous UFOs before his sudden and perplexing dropout from his public UFO interest. Was he scared off? Was he a hoaxster? Nobody knows. In 2002 he caught some weird red thing that you can clearly see change shape on camera. The video is at the bottom of the page.

Just this week a new video was posted to from Bloomington Indiana which shows a sort of trapezoidal point of light turn into a stubby looking hour glass.

posted on May, 11 2005 @ 04:09 AM
I'd say those kinds of UFOs are common, but uncommonly seen.
This is just me, but I'm pretty sure what you saw was it's camouflage in action. Shaping and bending the light around it to conceal itself. You probably never saw it's "texture" so to speak, because that would probably (I like that word) come off as something you could relate to, like metal or just a big UFO of some kind. I mean it did its job, right? You didn't think much of it, nevertheless of it as a UFO until just now?
I'd say that's pretty good camouflage.

posted on May, 11 2005 @ 05:42 AM
thanks for the links frith, im checking em' out. although similar, i havent yet seen a photo of the type of object i saw from the plane. most of the morphing ufos on those sites seem to be 'globual' like a handfull of baloons. the object i saw was generally elongated, like i said a 'flag being drug through the wind'. this leans me more in favor of some stealth 'camo' devise like drexon said.

its pretty amazing, but it doesnt contradict my sighting. i couldnt make out details or texture, mostly a shape shifting silhouette. im open to the idea there was a plane hidden behind the weird shadow, but thats some impressive technology. i understand being camoflauge to radar, but to eyesight? neat stuff.

edit: the more i think about it, the more sure i am it was an intelligently controlled flying machine. ever since i can remember i have passed it off as a 'cloud' because thats what it looked most like, but even so it couldnt possibly have been a cloud. the thing kept up with the plane as long as i watched it. although its hard to tell when youre going 500 miles per hour and you're just cruising through some clouds - but that thing was definetly propelled. we watched it for a good 15 minutes atleast. if it was stationary, we would have passed it. i really regret not asking one of the flight attendants, or even the captiain. or taken a picture!

my only UFO sighting, and i missed it for what it was..

[edit on 11-5-2005 by lost]

posted on May, 11 2005 @ 07:49 AM
I know that feeling. A little over a year ago I saw something simular. Only it had 2 lights, about as strong as star lights and inbetween them something I can only describe as camouflage 'not quite getting there', revealing it's mechanics so to speak. It's like it was operating at half capacity because there wasn't enough light to make it actually blend in with the background. This was at twilight I might add, the sky was dark blue and the stars had just begun to show.

So my current theory is that the UFOs' camo doesn't quite work if there isn't enough light to go around. Does this fit your situation at all? Take to mind that for the camo itself to work has to take the light from all directions and mold it into one blend and project that. Making the question: Did the color of the camo represent a blend of all the colors you had from your point of view at that time? Maybe the sky was light, with clouds and whatnot and the sea or ground was darker?

posted on May, 11 2005 @ 08:06 AM
wow drexon. you're hitting this one on the head. that is a very real possibilty.

it was daylight outside. blue sky. white clouds. and earth colors from down below. all mixed up together, i believe it would have made a nice muddy color against the backdrop of white clouds. how do you know so much about stealth tech?

i didnt know that the camo mixed then projected surrounding colors like that. its pretty amazing.

posted on May, 11 2005 @ 11:45 AM
Well I'm just being logical. They're just assumptions from sightings that I've read about and stuff I've seen my self. It just seems that if you're viewing a UFO with camo and it has a darker background it has trouble fitting in, so to speak. I don't know how it works or why the camo acts like this, but optimally it becomes invisible to almost invisible when there's a bright source of light (sky) behind it.

This is my theory:
Logically, the area directly around the craft is somehow altered. Maybe by altering the gas (air) directly around it or some advanced piece of technology alters the area around the craft to be able to bend light around the craft itself. It takes light from one direction, blends it together within the area I spoke of and sends it off in the general same direction. This process most probably "feeds" on light to make it work, making it way easier to do if there's a lot of light and foremost a smooth color in the background, like sky blue, or orange, anything a little brighter.
Having a silver craft, or something very reflective makes sense, because this way no other colors would come into action, altering the blend and making it more visible.

I could go on and on. I sat here half an hour shaping the above theory, needless to say I SUCK at english and it needs polishing.
Hope you get a general idea of what I think anyways.

posted on May, 11 2005 @ 12:01 PM
cool story Lost

Can't help but think of a few UFO sighting I read about while reading your account, here's some that might be of interest:

The above image was purported to have been taken by an Italian Dentist in Italy in July of 1999 in broad daylight. Little more is known about it than that the object was said to be extremely large, flying very high in the sky, emitting no sound and at a pace far too fast to be conventional aircraft or a balloon of somekind, and others who also witnessed the weird spectacle said its underside had 'lights like a UFO.'

New Zealand photographer Michael White, while shooting a strange looking dark cloud managed to capture on film yet another enigmatic, organic looking craft or creature. According to his information, he was shooting the strange looking black cloud which he observed for more than thirty minutes, when it suddenly disappeared. It happened so suddenly he did not even realize what he captured on film, which defies explanation.

While standing in a crop circle located in Wallacetown, Ontario, Mona's friend Amy took a 35mm photo of her. It wasn't until the film was developed that they noticed the peculiar looking object in the sky above Mona.


strange indeed............

[edit on 11-5-2005 by quadricle]

posted on May, 11 2005 @ 01:02 PM
well the top image looks strikingly similar to a crank off a bicycle, defiantly looks fake to me.

posted on May, 11 2005 @ 01:20 PM
So is the test that a UFO cannot look like anything we know? Considering we naturally match every new image with those we have seen you are going to miss a lot when you dismiss on those grounds.

I grant there are many, many phony pictures, and even a fair amount of simple mis-identification. But I find it is the backstory and the people involved which provide the best basis for judgement.


I also think Drexon's ideas are possible. Another possible explaination is that different people can sometimes see things that others cannot. Complex factors of experience and genetics combine to allow a person to see just a little more. Perhaps you were seeing 1% more of the visible spectrum that day for example. Because you were seeing a little more you could notice what others could not. It seems that these sort of minor expansions can be shared interestingly enough. When you told your friend then he could see it as well.


posted on May, 11 2005 @ 01:47 PM
You're talking about the psychology behind sightings, no? Interesting.
I get the feeling I've heard that story before, but I can't recall in what event. I think it had something to do with induced hypnosis or something though. One person is hypnotised to believe that something that isn't there is, and then he tells it to someone he knows trusts him with 100% believability and viola, it appears to him too.

But the reason why ppl in general doesn't see UFOs is actually covered by my 'theory', they're just freakin' invisible.

But to go back to the psychology behind a sighting. There's actually a lot that differs between a person that's seen a UFO and a person that hasn't, in everyday life. For instanse, if a person who's seen one might actually, involountarily search for one via. their periferal sight. Also, it's a proven fact that the younger you are, the less you are bound to patterns in everyday life. Lost was probably just an ordinary boy playing around in an aircraft, looking at whatever he could to keep the boredom away, when he spotted the UFO. An adult, stuck in his patterns, probably never looks out the window when on a flight, besides, what's so interesting about clouds? You're just gonna get neck pains after a while, no? A small child that has just learned to read can easily read a paper upside down 2-3 times faster than an adult, stuck in patterns, going by the shape of the word instead of the single letters. This would explain why maybe children, less stuck to the pattern of say, looking down into the pavement when walking, would spot a UFO because it's looking up into the sky instead.

I have to admit that I wouldn't have dreamed of spotting the UFO I saw a little over a year ago, with my periferal sight, because it would just have been too inconspicuous for my brain to percieve. I just happend to look at the stars that night when my eyes caught the attention of one of them moving and the rest's history.

[edit on 11-5-2005 by Drexon]

posted on May, 11 2005 @ 02:28 PM

I think it had something to do with induced hypnosis or something though. One person is hypnotised to believe that something that isn't there is, and then he tells it to someone he knows trusts him with 100% believability and viola, it appears to him too.

That just proves the telepathic communication possible between humans, we can send sensory information to each other. Hypnosis can engage abilities we cannot normally use. Everyone has the ability to send information, we simply do not know how.

You see Drexon I do not think there is any universal alien information, there are many races and probably some we will call creatures out there. So one, or many, races may use a light-bending form of cloak, but others rely on other methods or natural abilities.

I agree with you on who looks around more, and on who is more likely to see things that do not fit into their preconceptions.

But anything that gets in the way of normal perceptions has to be based on some understanding of what those perceptions are. I do not believe that human ability is nearly as limited as it is currently accepted as being. And when I say currently accepted, I mean by any living being that might be looking. Test 1 human, test 1,000 humans, test 1,000,000 humans and you still might not know the whole story. So many things are dependant on situation, you can call it the 'need to do', that we are not easy to understand.

So it might be that Lost saw a cloak as you describe, or it might be that he could literally see more that day.


posted on May, 11 2005 @ 02:52 PM
Well I have to disagree. I think that humans have reached the 'capacity' it should've reached, it was designed to reach. We'll get smarter, but smarter does not equal telekenesis. I think that's just a bogus word that belongs in the bible, at least at the moment.

Induced hypnosis is just that, hypnosis. Not real. Say you've been stuck on an island with the same person for 30 years, and there's a shipping lane nearby. If person A is the one responsible for spotting ships and pointing them out to person B, then after 30 years if person A suffers from dehydration and hallucinates a ship nearby and tells person B this, B will most likely also be able to see this. This has to do with psychology, not anything supernatural.

This ofcourse works in reverse. Say that all your life you've been told there's no such thing as UFOs, and then you see one. What do you do? Well, if you believe strongely enough that what you're watching doesn't exist, it won't go away, but it won't have an affect at your life either. This phase I think most unvolountary UFO sighters go through, unfortunately. Soon enough they'll forget about the incident entirely, even after being reminded of the fact that UFOs might exist, through say a TV show, or news broadcast. The human mind is capable of this.

[edit on 11-5-2005 by Drexon]

[edit on 11-5-2005 by Drexon]

posted on May, 12 2005 @ 12:09 AM

Well I have to disagree. I think that humans have reached the 'capacity' it should've reached, it was designed to reach. We'll get smarter, but smarter does not equal telekenesis.

I do not think we have reached anywhere near our full potential because the conditions that would require do not exist. I would measure our potential against that which could be produced in the optimum environment. As much credit as I give to people the complex nature of human beings means that the best any parent can really do is well under what is required. If you had an environment that handled every need, offered every possibilty, and nurtured every latent ability, then you would have a human at the peak of it's potential.

Catch is of course that you need people as parents who have to exceed what they were taught, and a World that is focused far differently than it is now. I realize this is an unobtainable goal, but it does serve as the background in which the full potential of the human race could be judged.

The best we have ever been able to do is slowly inch our way up the ladder of human potential.

Induced hypnosis is just that, hypnosis. Not real.

Perhaps I misunderstood your story, I should be more careful about major statements based on an example from others I suppose. I am not sure how you define 'real'. Hypnosis is real, what people do under it can also be real. If one person was told about a specific detail, and it was never mentioned to the other, what would you say if when asked to describe what they 'saw' they mentioned the detail?


posted on May, 12 2005 @ 02:42 AM
thanks for the input guys,

A.T. & drexon, regarding the psychological aspects behind my sighting, i really dont know. im open to those possiblities, but doubtful that really was the case. theres no way i could really know, but i know my buddy saw it and the whole ordeal felt as normal as any other experience, the little dark 'cloud' couldnt have been anything out of the ordinary for me at 11. i guessed it had an explanation. it didnt really strike me as 'out of place' - just odd...

One person is hypnotised to believe that something that isn't there is, and then he tells it to someone he knows trusts him with 100% believability and viola, it appears to him too.

Dr. Alen Hynek of the AirForces Project Bluebook talks about this very thing. or maybe it was Vallee, the other guy who co-wrote some of Hyneks books.. Anyways, they wrote about some sort of party where a guy was hypnotized to see a ufo in the sky. the hypnotized individual swore he saw something, but couldnt describe it any fuller than the description the hypnotist had already planted. mind you, nobody else saw it. hypnotism obviously can be a powerfull suggestive - but can it be trusted?

Ive thought before, "how would i react to a UFO sighting?" and i guess i know how i reacted to that one; i stared for a while, told a friend. stared some more, and when i couldnt figure out what it was - that was it. i probably turned around and watched a movie. lol. if i ever have another sighting, especially in a public setting - im going to address as many people as it takes until the object leaves or somebody identifies it. it could only provide more witnesses to the account.

quadricle, that first photo is interesting, maybe that craft used similar technology, but is a different shape. the second 2 photos, however, are the closest things ive seen. not exactly, but very close. of course 10 years can fuzz the memory. the middle fotograf looks like a giant stingray 'floating' pancake like - so i lean away, but the last one was filmed directly over a crop circle (fairly low alt), so neither of them completely fit my sighting. i dont know, but your source page gives me a lot of confidence that what i saw has been seen by others. then to think, possibly even 'sky-fish' - like organic - high altitude flying creatures. weird.

[edit on 12-5-2005 by lost]

posted on May, 12 2005 @ 04:09 AM

if i ever have another sighting, especially in a public setting - im going to address as many people as it takes until the object leaves or somebody identifies it.
When I read this I got a smile on my face. That's exactly how I feel.
I so deeply, deeply regret not yelling out what I saw that time a year ago. I was at a bus stop waiting for the bus, plenty of people around, cars, even my bus, wich I missed. But I just decided to chase it. Damn. Oh well, next time.

top topics


log in