Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What Are UFOs?

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 09:00 PM
link   
There are many explanations as to what Unidentified Flying Objects are. They are a mixture of all different kinds of things.

1. UFOs being military aircraft design, used, and flown by the military
2. UFOs obtained by us from alien crash retrievals
3. UFOs given or hand me downs from our limited contact with aliens
4. UFOs being inter dimensional in origin
5. UFOs that originate from this very planet by aliens and those that originate from the Earth
6. UFOs are psychic manifestations which may involved spiritual aspects
7. UFOs whose origin is beyond our understanding at this point in our development
8. UFOs being a result of negative spiritual force present on the Earth
9. UFOs psychological warfare devices by the various governments
10. UFOs being the result of mind control experiments
11. UFOs being the result of mass hysteria
12. UFOs natural phenomena some unbeknown to us
13. UFOs biological in nature
14. UFOs complete beyond our ability to comprehend what they are
15. UFOs manifested by unknown forces
16. UFOs being a result of our own beliefs
17. UFOs being foreign government military aircraft




posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 09:06 PM
link   
What about: delusion, misidentification, hoax, faded memories, perceptual illusion, and hearsay?



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Tearman
 


Add them to the list



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Another one that I don't think gets enough attention is how changes get subconsciously introduced to a story and compund through repeated retellings. I sometimes catch myself doing that with totally mundane stories.



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankinpillow
 


In the literal sense they are flying objects which we as individuals can't identify. Could be bugs, birds, bats, things that flicker by the side of the eye, reflections mistaken for something in the air, military aircraft, pie tins, balloon, etc. etc.

In the question of something obviously not any of those things but still out there flying, if the answer comes at all it will be at the fabled moment of "disclosure". But if the objects that many people think of as UFO's are never identified, it will likely be because they didn't exist in the first place.



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   
In my mind, the 'real' ones fall into one of two categories.

1. Extraterrestrial probes/collection platforms (far more advanced than our Mars Rovers).
2. Advanced human developed flight technologies classified due to their potential military capabilities.
edit on 2612014 by Snarl because: ET autocorrection



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   
This isn't strictly related to the topic of what UFOs may be. But I have a point to offer to those who think all UFO reports are bunk.

Re: "Faulty Perceptions as a Reason for Reporting UFOs"

Yes, it's true that some UFO reports have mundane explanations. It's important to note also that even if a witness appears sincere, it's not sufficient to establish credibility. Conmen appear sincere as well; that's the definition of one. So, what are other criteria for establishing whether a witness truly reported a truly strange event? We should keep this in mind when examining reports. People are too prone to misremembering details and faulty perception.

How do we vet reports for this? I think focusing on cases with multiple independent witnesses may be key. We must remember that there are quite reasonable bounds on witness testimony. When multiple independents (that is, the witnesses do not know each other) report that a fire broke out, we don't receive reports of a rhino ramming a baby carriage. There indeed may be variations, but again within a reasonable limit. Can the basic facts of the case be distilled from independent testimony?

There are also physical alterations to the environment that don't seem readily explainable. It doesn't make sense that a UFO could leave landing gear marks on the ground where multiple independent witnesses said it landed, but the UFO itself was imagined. Are the marks supposed to be a "hoax"? There's a preponderance of physical evidence which simply doesn't reduce to mundane explanations.


edit on 26-1-2014 by RUInsane because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by RUInsane
 


How many UFOs must be 'documented' before their existence is formally acknowledged?

I'll go you one better for credible reporting: Eyewitnesses plus radar confirmation. Why are such events not considered conclusive proof? The reason is to keep the Sheople in doubt and TPTB in control.

Everyone can be made to believe that if there's no physical evidence ... then there is some other logical (even if we can't figure it out) explanation. No ET UFO is going to crash by accident. Would you REALLY expect some fallible technology to actually be able to navigate interstellar space, only to crash on our little rock? Come on!!



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Snarl
 


Reports from multiple independent witnesses + radar confirmation + landing traces would be even better.

I don't think world governments know about the UFO problem any more than we do. They don't want to acknowledge UFOs because that would damage their reputation on a public relations level. UFOs violate numerous aviation safety regulations, and are unpredictable. They fly at unpredictable altitudes through several paths. The role of agencies like the FAA is to maintain public confidence in safe skies. If the public knew that the military/government couldn't defend against UFOs, there would be open revolt. It's simply to maintain the illusion of control. Government(s) don't know what UFOs are, and they're powerless to stop them.



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   

RUInsane
This isn't strictly related to the topic of what UFOs may be. But I have a point to offer to those who think all UFO reports are bunk.

Re: "Faulty Perceptions as a Reason for Reporting UFOs"

Yes, it's true that some UFO reports have mundane explanations. It's important to note also that even if a witness appears sincere, it's not sufficient to establish credibility. Conmen appear sincere as well; that's the definition of one. So, what are other criteria for establishing whether a witness truly reported a truly strange event? We should keep this in mind when examining reports. People are too prone to misremembering details and faulty perception.

How do we vet reports for this? I think focusing on cases with multiple independent witnesses may be key. We must remember that there are quite reasonable bounds on witness testimony. When multiple independents (that is, the witnesses do not know each other) report that a fire broke out, we don't receive reports of a rhino ramming a baby carriage. There indeed may be variations, but again within a reasonable limit. Can the basic facts of the case be distilled from independent testimony?
But testimony is often all over the map. And what doesn't fit the picture a researcher is trying to paint is often selectively discarded. This shifts the source of doubt from the witnesses to the researcher.

Add to that, the 3rd witness that looked at the UFO and only saw an airplane didn't even bother to fill out a report saying so.


There are also physical alterations to the environment that don't seem readily explainable. It doesn't make sense that a UFO could leave landing gear marks on the ground where multiple independent witnesses said it landed, but the UFO itself was imagined. Are the marks supposed to be a "hoax"? There's a preponderance of physical evidence which simply doesn't reduce to mundane explanations.
Again, the researcher is as much fallible as the witnesses. They are also prone to get caught up in a hoax or hysteria. Physical evidence has to be overwhelmingly suggestive of extraterrestrial activity and be verifiable by others.
edit on 26-1-2014 by Tearman because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-1-2014 by Tearman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by RUInsane
 

If you developed a craft capable of interstellar travel, would you design it to land? Or, would you program it to move on quickly to its next destination? Figure if it stopped at each location to pick up say a simple soil sample, the limited numbers of worlds it could explore, before its sample boxes were full and had to return. Or, would you ensure a capable sensor package with data storage to preclude landing?

I wonder if there's a repository of logical questions out there?

Good discussion points, brother. Thanks for making me think.



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 05:01 AM
link   
UFO's are cosmic vehicles, often organic, living or AI. I know we have what some call "ufo's", don't call ours UFO's. Bigger inside than out, interdimensional and magical. They have bells and whistles that our technology does not begin to exhibit.
edit on 27-1-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


There you go getting all vibratory on us with Ufos.



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 05:53 AM
link   

RUInsane
reply to post by Snarl
 


If the public knew that the military/government couldn't defend against UFOs, there would be open revolt.


That is just bullexcrement. In real war situations of real common danger, the 'publuc' pulls together and do something, not revolt.

ANY condition in which any organisation says they have to hide something for the public good is fake. Stop patronising people and they may start acting like adults.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Snarl
reply to post by RUInsane
 

If you developed a craft capable of interstellar travel, would you design it to land? Or, would you program it to move on quickly to its next destination? Figure if it stopped at each location to pick up say a simple soil sample, the limited numbers of worlds it could explore, before its sample boxes were full and had to return. Or, would you ensure a capable sensor package with data storage to preclude landing?

I wonder if there's a repository of logical questions out there?

Good discussion points, brother. Thanks for making me think.


You're welcome.

Those are all very good questions. Another one is why such a species wouldn't send out probes that could remotely collect data. We don't have a clue about ET research methodology. The craft that visit Earth could be specified for different functions. The familiar saucer-shaped ones could be general exploration and cruising. The cigar-shaped craft could be our equivalent of aircraft carriers, given their large size. It makes sense for IST-capable craft to be designed for landing. But that doesn't mean that all planets would be "landable". How could we land on gas giants without sinking, for instance?


asciikewl

RUInsane
reply to post by Snarl
 


If the public knew that the military/government couldn't defend against UFOs, there would be open revolt.


That is just bullexcrement. In real war situations of real common danger, the 'publuc' pulls together and do something, not revolt.

ANY condition in which any organisation says they have to hide something for the public good is fake. Stop patronising people and they may start acting like adults.


There are multiple reasons governments won't acknowledge UFOs. It doesn't matter if there's a real threat. It's the perceived danger from lack of control. There's no way a sane government would openly admit they can't control something. The nominal purpose of government to provide security. Disclosure defeats the purpose of government.

Imagine President Obama walking to the podium on a nationally televised address to announce deadpan that alien space-ships are real. "By the way: We can't predict when they'll come, what altitude they'll fly at, what flight paths they'll take. They can remotely disable our nuclear weapons systems. And they may be responsible for abducting our fellow citizens."

No one in a serious position of authority would ever publicly say that. It's political suicide. It's not about the "public good"; it's about preserving institutional power. The "public good" is a fiction used to legitimize state authority. I'm not naive to think governments have our best interests at heart.

edit on 2-2-2014 by RUInsane because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   
UFO= Unidentyfied Flying Object

Overthinking much?!?!?!?

If you know what it is, how can it be "UNIDENTYFIED"

Boneheads



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Miccey
 


That's so broad as to be useless. There are three major definitions of the term.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Tearman
What about: delusion, misidentification, hoax, faded memories, perceptual illusion, and hearsay?


I find it hard to believe that thousands of sightings are delusions, misidentifications, hearsays.. so and so.

Why is that people always see lights, crafts in the skies when they are delusional and not an image of say..Hitler or Stalin flying over the clouds? Atleast that will explain something.


edit on 2-2-2014 by radkrish because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-2-2014 by radkrish because: (no reason given)


They have no associated memories with crafts and strange lights more than they have with people. If the human brain tricks us into thinking these are crafts with lights in the sky, why is it so?
edit on 2-2-2014 by radkrish because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   

RUInsane
reply to post by Miccey
 


That's so broad as to be useless. There are three major definitions of the term.


I'm sorry...BUT; "Unidentified Flying Object" is kind of self-defining. In that it/they are objects that appear to be "flying" and can not be identified by the observer. Period!

Even the "aircraft" that I can observe any time I like should be classified as "UFO's" for the simple fact that all they really are to me is a "light in the sky"...While I know that they are commercial aircraft probably landing at DFW airport, I don't really have any "evidence" of that...all I can readily discern is: "a light in the sky" and hence a "UFO".

But, neither you nor I would think of these "lights" that way because we think we know better. Yet, by definition, they remain "UFOs".




posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   

tanka418

RUInsane
reply to post by Miccey
 


That's so broad as to be useless. There are three major definitions of the term.


I'm sorry...BUT; "Unidentified Flying Object" is kind of self-defining. In that it/they are objects that appear to be "flying" and can not be identified by the observer. Period!

Even the "aircraft" that I can observe any time I like should be classified as "UFO's" for the simple fact that all they really are to me is a "light in the sky"...While I know that they are commercial aircraft probably landing at DFW airport, I don't really have any "evidence" of that...all I can readily discern is: "a light in the sky" and hence a "UFO".

But, neither you nor I would think of these "lights" that way because we think we know better. Yet, by definition, they remain "UFOs".




Thank you, a person who can think for him/herself.

Allthough i agree with your first part, i dont on the second.

By definition i CAN partly identify the blinking light above my house as
a craft, manmade. Due to the position of the lights, the pattern and
in MOST cases the sound. So I wouldnt classify that as a ufo.

But as ive said, UFO doesnt mean EXTRA TERRESTRIAL.
And it doesnt men ALIENS, ANGELS, DEMONS or anything
else for that matter..ITS UNKNOWN





new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join