What is your criteria for identifying a legitimate UFO/USO?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
What is your criteria for identifying a UFO/USO?

Mine is...

A soundless flying/submerged object that is invisible to radar/sonar that flies in a intelligent flight pattern at super sonic speeds without a sonic boom. Multiple people see the same object and report the same flight pattern.

I've never seen a 8000 mph weather balloon or a meteor that stops and hovers or hundreds of "crazy" people hallucinating at the same time with the same hallucination.

I don't know. Maybe they do have weather balloons that can arm/disarm our nuclear warheads. You never know.





posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   
UFO means "Unidentified Flying Object". By that logic, everything that you can't identify that is flying is a UFO. So I guess that's my criteria for a legit UFO

Pi**es me off when people hear UFO and automatically think aliens!!!!



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 

it must be unidentified, flying and an object.
thats about it.





edit:also what about all the the ufo's that are slow moving and can be seen by radar? are they not ufo's?
edit on 19-9-2013 by Rikku because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


hmm, sorry to be pedantic, but you can't "identify" the unidentified, if it's identified then it's no longer a UFO/USO.

A genuine UFO is Unidentified. Flying Object.
A genuine USO is presumably Unidentified and Submerged Object?

So, I'm not sure what you mean with the question in the OP...
Do you mean identifying a genuine alien (extraterrestrial) craft?

GTD



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Gordi The Drummer
 


How do you determine if the object is a identified known object like a aircraft,blimp,stealth blimp, drone,meteor,optical illusion,atmospheric phenomena,light source from a human device,reflections/lens glares,CGI etc?



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   

John_Rodger_Cornman
reply to post by Gordi The Drummer
 


How do you determine if the object is a identified known object like a aircraft,blimp,stealth blimp, drone,meteor,optical illusion,atmospheric phenomena,light source from a human device,reflections/lens glares,CGI etc?


You look at the evidence.
You compare the evidence with known explained objects or phenomena.
Eliminate the objects and phenomena that don't fit the evidence.
Check the evidence in detail to look for known mis-identifications or deliberate hoaxes.
Narrow it down to the most likely, most plausible explanation and that's usually that.

If nothing really "fits" the evidence, then it remains genuinely unidentified.
In most cases you won't get to 100% certainty, but they say that 95% of all cases can be "identified" or "explained" as known objects / phenomena or mis-identification / hoax, beyond reasonable doubt.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   
1. its flying
2. its unidentified
3. its an object



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


Maybe you should change it to identify an extra terrestrial craft and get ready for the flames! We all know UFO is a term used for flying saucers but the exact use of the term does refer to unidentified for the U. Which I see some have already pointed out.

My criteria for an apparent ET craft would be clearly displays flight performance or capability far beyond our present technology. Which I feel comfortable to be able to judge for myself. Without other people saying no it's an anti-gravity black op you don't know what our current science is capable of or that didn't happen or they were all hallucinating blah blah blah it's just a story.

Very high g high Mach performance with no apparent aerodynamic surfaces, totally silent flight and hovering, no sonic boom. Flight performance such as this would require complete manipulation of gravitational fields which I am very certain our human technology is not capable of. So such capability is by definition alien to us and our technology.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by JimTSpock
 


0 to 8000+ mph and G forces that would kill a human being.
No sonic boom. No hailing the flight communication towers.
Going into restricted airspace and not be shot down.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   

JimTSpock
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


Maybe you should change it to identify an extra terrestrial craft and get ready for the flames! We all know UFO is a term used for flying saucers but the exact use of the term does refer to unidentified for the U. Which I see some have already pointed out.



No a ufo is an unidentified flying object.
A flying saucer is a flying saucer.

It would seem that many ufologists dont even realise the difference.
And even an identified flying saucer doesnt necessarily mean aliens.
The tr3b for example.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Florasaurus
UFO means "Unidentified Flying Object". By that logic, everything that you can't identify that is flying is a UFO. So I guess that's my criteria for a legit UFO

Pi**es me off when people hear UFO and automatically think aliens!!!!



Not much point of having this in the ALIEN forum then



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by OneManArmy
 


LOL. So in mass media and popular culture the term UFO has never been used to imply aliens and flying saucers? Of course it has. That is what I was referring to. If you see a book with UFO across the title what do you think it might be about? Aliens and flying saucers. To the general public, mass media and popular culture UFO has a broader use than perhaps it does on ATS.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   

JimTSpock
reply to post by OneManArmy
 


LOL. So in mass media and popular culture the term UFO has never been used to imply aliens and flying saucers? Of course it has. That is what I was referring to. If you see a book with UFO across the title what do you think it might be about? Aliens and flying saucers. To the general public, mass media and popular culture UFO has a broader use than perhaps it does on ATS.


Mass media is confused about a lot of things, of course it has been used to "imply" aliens.
I was just pointing out the flaw in that "thinking".
By the very definition of UFO, if its aliens, then its NOT unidentified.

Mass media said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Mass media uses fear to manipulate society.
Please, please dont base your thinking on what the "mass media" tells you.


Live long and prosper.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by OneManArmy
 


You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately the term does have a history and is much more than just the abbreviation of three letters. It conjures all kinds of imagery as a result of movies, TV, books, news reports etc. If you see a newspaper article 'Man claims UFO landed in barn' it definitely conjures imagery of more than just unidentified object. A case where the strict scientific use of the term is different to the traditional popular culture meaning of the term.

Just as an example this thread title. Not an exact correct scientific use of the term UFO but we all know exactly what the author means don't we?

Live long and prosper yourself.
edit on 19-9-2013 by JimTSpock because: add



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
My criterion on assessing UFO footage/claims:

Is there ANY normal/conventional explanation?

If there is ANY likelihood of a normal explanation, it makes evaluation of videos etc. MUCH, MUCH easier and eliminates approx. 98% of all so claimed "UFO sightings".

Criterion also includes "could it be CGI" (is there any indication that the footage/pic may be faked or hoaxed)..and if what you see CAN have any other explanation.

For example... A "light in the sky" is so long a conventional craft, balloon, planet or whatever AS LONG as the footage does not clearly make me EXCLUDE any such explanation, for example if a "light" shows movements which make it impossible it's a normal craft, insect, bird etc.

* What in a footage or picture indicates that what is shown is really *extraordinary* and cannot be explained conventionally?

The vast majority of claims of "UFO sightings" footage etc. does not care to bother following this ultra-simple rule, the claim/speculation has precedence over what is actually shown in the pic/video. Only a very, very tiny number of pics/footage shows really extraordinary things.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   

JimTSpock

Just as an example this thread title. Not an exact correct scientific use of the term UFO but we all know exactly what the author means don't we?


Oh indeed, you too are absolutely correct.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   

John_Rodger_Cornman
reply to post by JimTSpock
 


0 to 8000+ mph and G forces that would kill a human being.
No sonic boom. No hailing the flight communication towers.
Going into restricted airspace and not be shot down.


If someone alleges an object went from 0 to 8000+ mph very quickly, then I would need some very good verification that it really was an object that did that (more than an anecdotal account of actually seeing a physical object, and more than a radar-only account where the object was never really physically seen performing that acceleration).


However, let's say for the sake of this argument that there WAS some object that was positively identified as a craft that accelerated from 0 to 8000+ mph. That would still not necessarily mean "ETs" because if an ET could survive that acceleration (maybe by some hypothetical gravity manipulation), then that means it is possible that humans could develop this hypothetical gravity manipulation -- and the object in question is really secret military.

Then again, perhaps the object in question is secret military and robotic (no pilot to feel the G-forces).

I'm not saying such a gravity manipulation device or such a robotic craft exists (I was only using that example for purposes of this discussion), I'm just pointing out ways a craft that accelerates at speeds that would normally be deadly to humans may NOT necessarily be extraterrestrials.

It's just that "That object did things I can't explain, so it must be ET-controlled" seems like a leap in logic to me.


edit on 9/19/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Are all possible and realistic mundane conclusions accounted for and found to be unsatisfactory.

Even then given now days UFO's can be many things after all mundane conclusions are accounted for it could still just be something mundane.

The only way a UFO for me to be real is if I saw it myself and even then id have to rule out every thing else it could be.


Only one ive seen in that category personally and that was an L shaped formation of 4 'satellites' going over at night, that being said they where roughly satellite speed, height and satellite brightness, I just couldnt find anything to do with satellites that showed they could be grouped in 4's in that shape, even so... its still not a definite in my opinion due to those traits.

The only footage ive seen of 'UFO' that ive been really impressed by was one taken at night with night vision back in the 90's, they where filming a commercial plane when a light comes in at high speed and basically horse shoes around the plane in less than a second and zips off into the darkness, didnt appear to be CG and it was done at a time when that sort of thing wasnt freely or easily gotten by joe public. Also there was one the show 'Sightings' caught on camera which was like a large gold light that traveled across the night sky during one of their investigations of an area (wasnt area 51, but it was a UFO hotspot at the time).

All good and great, past and present 'UFOs' that pass all that are still simply 'possible' UFO's... after all we wont know unless you can walk up to it and touch it.

Sad, but thats just the way it is, and how you need to deal with the subject.
edit on 19-9-2013 by BigfootNZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Technology such as this is not possible with our current understanding of science and physics, we simply don't have it and can't do it. With such an anti-gravity system g forces could be eliminated so a biological occupant could survive.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   

JimTSpock
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Technology such as this is not possible with our current understanding of science and physics, we simply don't have it and can't do it. With such an anti-gravity system g forces could be eliminated so a biological occupant could survive.


SO explain the tr3b.
And the arizona lights. I think that event was the result of a human made vessel. A very large human anti gravity vessel.



new topics
top topics
 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join