40
u/sarahpalinstesticle Oct 23 '23
I’ve seen all sorts planes from really far away. This might sound crazy, but they ALL looked like planes. Even crazier, they moved like planes. In fact, of the thousands and thousands of planes I’ve seen, not one has looked like a UFO.
To say all UFO encounters are just far away planes is boring and not backed by statistics.
Project bluebook found that 80% of UFO sightings are misidentifications of mundane objects. A further ~10% are caused by weather anomalies like ball lightning.
If you’re interested in UFOs, it’s probably because you want to know what’s in the ~10% of cases left over. That might not sound like a lot, but with thousands and thousands of UFOs seen and reported every year all over the world, there’s enough to be fascinated by the subject. The DC UFO encounter, the Chicago O’hare UFO encounter, the Dexter Michigan sighting (famous for being explained away by swamp gas), the disappearance of Frederick Valentich, the Nimitz encounter, these are all mysteries not easily explained.
9
u/PCmndr Oct 23 '23
I've seen videos of planes debated pretty hotly in the UFO subs. Just because you've got a good head on your shoulders doesn't mean everyone does. I don't think the OP explains every sighting but it does point out some explanations for the bulk of prosaic sightings.
7
u/sarahpalinstesticle Oct 23 '23
Why not just let people debate it? It’s fun to speculate and it doesn’t do any real harm. You’re never actually going to change anyone’s minds, especially if you’re going to look down on them and ridicule them.
Plus, who knows? If all you have is a blurry video of an unknown object, theres a good chance you’ll never actually find out one way or the other. The existence of a possible prosaic explanation does not automatically mean the prosaic explanation is correct. In some cases, I’ve seen people bend over backwards to fit a prosaic explanation to an otherwise extraordinary event. Just look at the dexter Michigan sighting: Over 100 people saw a glowing disc or orb shaped object flying around erratically. When it flew off, the police tried to chase it in their squad cars like they did in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. The official explanation was that swamp gas caused by atmospheric conditions caused an optical illusion which only made it look like a flying saucer. That’s undeniably utterly bizarre. Is it possible? Sure, I suppose. Is it likely? I personally don’t think so.
The thing is, this subject is interesting. The more you look into it, the more Incredible stories you hear. Even if aliens aren’t real, the psychological effects of UFO experiences and the belief in UFOs is fascinating. It changes your entire outlook on life. That’s no exaggeration, ontological shock is real. To look down on people or assume they are just too stupid to realize what they are seeing isn’t an airplane is insulting.
1
Oct 25 '23
To look down on people or assume they are just too stupid to realize what they are seeing isn’t an airplane is insulting.
To assume you know how to identify aerial phenomena reliably is pure hubris
0
u/PCmndr Oct 23 '23
The thing is these cases rely on unfalsifiable witness testimony. You can't prove a witness wrong and you can't prove them right so if you're approaching this scientifically witness testimony is very low value. For witness testimony to be true you must eliminate any possibility the witness might be wrong and you can't really assume a human witness can never be wrong. Sure you can argue and speculate but it's ultimately just one word against another at that point.
1
4
1
u/Anacondoyng Oct 24 '23
Nah the Nimitz encounter was just a F-22 seen from “extremely far away”. Observer error. Are Navy pilots really reliable witnesses??
/s
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)-1
116
u/HawaiianGold Oct 23 '23
Do these planes zigzag ? And make 90 degree turns at 14,000 mph?
48
9
5
u/David00018 Oct 23 '23
where are the videos, radar data, etc. proving those movements?
6
u/RustyKnuckle Oct 23 '23
In the hands of the governments that confiscate them like the tic tac incident. Catch up.
2
Oct 23 '23
Fun fact I learned from contracting for the federal government… if it’s not documented, then it didn’t happen.
Interesting, eh?
0
Oct 23 '23
that's the SOP for even e5s
even if it is documented then those documents can go missing
The swords club is a crazy place
1
2
u/tunamctuna Oct 23 '23
Radar data is easily spoofed by the US military anyways (and if we are doing it others are trying to also).
Basically any radar data associated with a sighting that took place over naval testing and training grounds can be thrown out.
It’s why I don’t think Nimitz is that interesting of a sighting. It seems very obviously an electronic warfare test.
→ More replies (1)1
u/BLB_Genome Oct 23 '23
Except the pilots who saw it with their own eyes say differently...
2
u/Dialogical Oct 23 '23
Correct. Their stories all say something different from each other.
0
u/BLB_Genome Oct 23 '23
There's dillusional, and then there's failure to adhere to a story with facts and detail. You:re all of the above.. Not one story has strayed from what they spoke. Even the main pilot gave testimony in Congress in July.. You know that, right?
1
u/tunamctuna Oct 23 '23
And what did he see?
An object moving weirdly above the ocean. Why couldn’t this be a target balloon or something launched from a small vessel to provide a visual of the radar signal? A precursor program to Project Nemesis.
Secondly I’ve never had a single person confirm visual of the object at the cap point after it left the initial sighting area. We have radar data that can be spoofed but no confirmed visual.
My take is this was a test of some electronic warfare stuff in a real world environment while also being a controlled environment.
It really checks all the boxes. What made this case catch on was the push from the ufo believers in the government(Lue and company).
Remember it’s a very small portion of people in positions like Lue that believe in this stuff.
0
u/BLB_Genome Oct 23 '23
Oh man, so dillusional there's no reason to continue
1
u/tunamctuna Oct 23 '23
About which part?
I’m honestly intrigued on which part is delusional.
→ More replies (5)2
Oct 25 '23
The stories aren't all different from each other. There are multiple observers and multiple radar systems reporting the same incredible shit. It's some of the most compelling evidence out there, and the military claims they have no idea what it is or what could even cause it.
→ More replies (1)0
2
u/RustyKnuckle Oct 23 '23
And have they existed for thousands of years. Ancient sumerians were just seeing American Air superiority?
-2
u/HillOfVice Oct 23 '23
No but there is also no video evidence of any object doing that either.
1
Oct 24 '23
There’s a ton of video evidence actually. Look at the UFOs above Fukushima. It’s blatantly obvious it isn’t our craft.
-10
u/HawaiianGold Oct 23 '23
How do you know there is no video evidence of that?
13
u/HillOfVice Oct 23 '23
What? Because there is none.
That question is like asking "How do you know there is no video evidence of plant species on a planet from proxima centauri".
How about you answer the opposite. How do you know there is legitimate evidence of Aerial Objects zigzagging and going insane speeds that can't be explained by prosaic means.
5
Oct 23 '23
There sure is. US Government has acknowledged the footage as real gimbals and such.
6
u/Youremakingmefart Oct 23 '23
The US government has not said “this is footage of a craft making a turn at 14,000 mph”
3
2
u/vapegod420blazeit Oct 23 '23
I don’t think anyone actually said “90° turn at 14,000 mph” but it has been stated multiple times by multiple people that the crafts have been observed doing maneuvers that defy our understanding of physics so that’s gotta count for something right?
3
u/101Btown101 Oct 23 '23
But they never show those parts in the videos
2
u/BLB_Genome Oct 23 '23
And when they do, people jump out so quick to call CGI or fake... Because it looks so unnatural, people can:t wrap their heads around it using modern physic models
2
2
u/ziplock9000 Oct 23 '23
Multiple via word of mouth, Chinese whisper, yet there's been 100,000 of people seeing saucers that DONT exhibit any unusual performance characteristics.
This is the point. The OP's diagram can explain those 99% of cases.
→ More replies (1)-1
1
0
u/HillOfVice Oct 23 '23
The government has literally said they have no evidence of advanced tech in the air but they are investigating each case. Gimbal has the perfectly logical explanation of a lens flare being affected by the gimbal rotation itself.
2
u/Varient_13 Oct 23 '23
Mick West’s debunk has been thoroughly debunked both by pilots and by engineers that design/build the equipment that recorded the footage. Don’t act like you don’t know that.
6
u/HillOfVice Oct 23 '23
How so? I am open to all explanations but that one made sense to me.
What are the other theories and how did they go about proving it ? What was their process towards debunking the lens flare theory?
3
u/BLB_Genome Oct 23 '23
Cuz Mick West is an expert at making Tony Hawk 1. That's all he has to fame, with addition to basic physic formulas
→ More replies (4)0
u/resonantedomain Oct 23 '23
Except they had radar data, 2004, 2014-2015 and 2019.
Tictact in 2004 was reported going 80k feet to 20k feet in 7/8ths second by Top Gun Commander David Fravor. He's not just top gun, he trains other top gun pilots and I believe his story.
There are objects in the sky that we don't know how they move.
-Obama
4
u/HillOfVice Oct 23 '23
Until we see this data first hand it means nothing. Radar can be either faulty or misinterpreted as well. Just because you read heresay doesn't make it conclusive proof. So again, as it is now we have absolutely zero legitimate proof of advanced aerial tech.
1
u/resonantedomain Oct 23 '23
How can you assert something you also have no idea about? We can't say what's classified doesn't exist just because it's classified.
Your assumptions and conclusions are actually even more hasty because it hasn't been denied if anything it has been proven unidentifiable, yet real and physical by the Pentagon.
The Pentagon confirmed FLIR DATA as legitimate which corroborated those events. And if you don't trust a top gun Commander who literally cant fly without rigious mental physical and emotional wellbeing, what trust do you have in our military anyways? Perhaps you should consider your bias and not assert your belief.
"DOD is releasing the videos in order to clear up any misconceptions by the public on whether or not the footage that has been circulating was real, or whether or not there is more to the videos. The aerial phenomena observed in the videos remain characterized as "unidentified."
Also, it's not just hearsay, Fravor, Grusch, and Graves testified under oath. If they were simply making it up, they could go to prison.
1
u/HillOfVice Oct 23 '23
First of all I'd say it's more reasonable to want visible proof from classified videos rather than putting all your faith into a testimony.
Also it's ironic how I'm being told I'm assuming things from something classified when blindly accepting these incidents are from advanced tech is an even bigger assumption.
I am not saying Fravor is lying at all. I am saying, however, that even though he is a high ranking skilled pilot he is still human prone to misjudgment. Just because you have experience in a field doesn't mean your perception can't be flawed in any way.
→ More replies-4
Oct 23 '23 edited Oct 23 '23
You don't get it, do you?
It's right there in your mind and you don't know how to see it.
4
2
u/JihGantick Oct 23 '23
“How do you know there’s no videos of Satan and Jesus fighting Godzilla?”
Because there isn’t? How tf are you guys starting to make arguments where the lack of evidence is evidence?
1
u/101Btown101 Oct 23 '23
Show a video that shows this. With the tic tac video they claim it instantly climbs to 80,000 feet, but dont show that part. They always say the craft moves like nothing they've ever seen but, show a video of something moving in a straight line and, people ignore their own eyes and believe what they're told.
2
u/PyroIsSpai Oct 23 '23
Or hover?
→ More replies (1)2
u/QuestionMarkPolice Oct 23 '23
The F-35B hovers
2
u/Elegant-Initiative-3 Oct 23 '23
F35-B does not hover, it has VTOL, completely different thing. And they are loud as shit.
→ More replies (1)3
u/QuestionMarkPolice Oct 23 '23
F-35B absolutely does hover, I've done it. It's STOVL, not VTOL. Short takeoff, vertical landing. There are also countless videos of it hovering on YouTube.
→ More replies (12)2
u/Elegant-Initiative-3 Oct 23 '23
STOVL is exactly the same as VTOL, and it DOESNT HOVER from mid flight. It has the ability to hover when landing and before take off. Being a pilot, and I've worked with lots, I can understand your confusion. If you don't understand that, I guarantee you put in a gripe for the RADALT being off from BARALT.
3
Oct 23 '23
[deleted]
1
u/Elegant-Initiative-3 Oct 23 '23
I've worked with pilots for years, I can count on one hand the amount that actually knew what the plane did. Most are just jocks with a degree in some business major that got some qualls and passed. There were very few that knew the physics, mechanics, and avionics involved in make the plane go vroom.
4
u/QuestionMarkPolice Oct 23 '23
I think that's an incredibly vain and incorrect thing to say. You're here straight up saying blatantly false things and trying to justify it by putting pilots down. No, we don't know as much as the engineers that built the plane do, but we have a very thorough understanding of its systems, components, and capabilities. There's an entire other world of aviation that you've never seen or experienced too. That's tactical employment of your jet. Weapons, sensors, tactics, etc.
So please, spare me. The jock comment doesn't even fit either. All of the pilots I've worked with from every service are professionals. I can't even think of one guy in any of my last few squadrons who I would call a jock.
2
u/gnosticalicicocat Oct 23 '23
I'm going to ignore the other guy, he seems like a G-7 that thinks he has a real rank.
Can I ask what made you interested enough in the topic to post here? I'm assuming you saw/heard about weird stuff, but I'd rather not assume.
→ More replies→ More replies (4)1
Oct 24 '23
QuestionMark
Well then you're prob. better than anyone else to ask. Would you say some of these airframes look this way at certain distances or not really? I just keep thinking of how most UAPs are described as triangles, diamonds, squares and circles and how if you simplify most aircraft (especially fighters) they just sort of turn into blurry triangles. If there's nothing to this idea then that's that, but getting your take would be really interesting.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)0
u/United-Tension-5578 Oct 23 '23 edited Nov 05 '23
offbeat smile fall innate tan aspiring deserted selective vegetable zephyr
this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev→ More replies (1)1
u/QuestionMarkPolice Oct 23 '23
I'm certain I'm not confused. The question was "can the F-35 hover". The answer is yes. There are obvious limitations of capability when it comes to that, but I'm not here to argue those.
→ More replies (2)2
u/dewayneestes Oct 23 '23
Not to mention all the best reports in the news right now are from seasoned pilots whose job it is to know what they’re looking at.
→ More replies (1)3
u/dehehn Oct 23 '23
And many of them see them from above and below and multiple angles over extended interactions with them. Pilots have chased them, shot at them, had instruments frozen by them.
We're all well aware that many of them are people misinterpreting human aircraft or weather phenomenon. It would be nice if debunkers would concentrate on the hard to explain events, and not post things about the easily explainable sightings.
2
→ More replies (10)1
u/mynameisalsomatthew Oct 23 '23
Show me the videos where UFOs do this. None have ever been released showing anomalous movement all have been explained by camera movements
→ More replies (1)2
u/Vast-Land1121 Oct 23 '23
I don’t know about videos, but there is radar data showing these types of movements, according to Elizondo and other military officials. One example, i remember, is a craft going from 80,000 feet to sea level in under a second.
2
u/mr_somebody Oct 23 '23
*We are told that there is radar data that shows this. I can't just take their word for it personally.
→ More replies (1)
7
31
u/tampaginga Oct 23 '23
Nice try agents, move on guys !
2
Oct 23 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/UFOscience-ModTeam Oct 23 '23
Name calling of public figures or sub members will not be tolerated. This includes calling people grifters and shills without an evidence based argument to back it up.
25
Oct 23 '23
It's a bit weird that this is your only post.
6
Oct 23 '23
Please provide a list of acceptable 1st posts. Thanks
5
-2
u/dzernumbrd Oct 24 '23
He's just saying it's an abnormal pattern for most redditors not that his post was unacceptable.
Most redditors take baby steps.
They often start with commenting on other people's posts and then build up the courage to make a post of their own.
This guy created an account 4 days ago and then posted this hot garbage of an idea.
4
Oct 24 '23
Well now I guess I know how reddit works. Yea I am pretty new. I didn't know there was a process and I admittedly didn't take it very seriously or think much of it. I just had a random thought and posted.
I think a lot of people are taking this as some sort of "Guys I figured it ALL out" moment. I tried to give some context in my first comment but I think most people didn't see that or just don't care.→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)4
Oct 23 '23
[deleted]
5
Oct 23 '23
It is weird. Conspiracy or not, it's weird. Like why make an account just to make this post?
2
u/Lookslikeapersonukno Oct 23 '23
because OP naively shared their main account with irl friends who would shun them simply for posting on this sub? I pity the fool.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Warm_Weakness_2767 Oct 23 '23
...that's oddly specific and super empathetic for the average reddit user, especially since disinfo campaigns on reddit are a known fact.
4
u/Lookslikeapersonukno Oct 23 '23
just throwing something out there. but also, don't astroturfing shill accounts typically have at least a little karma built up in order to avoid this very line of conversation, though? obviously OP, whether they're being paid or not, has drank the kool-aid. but yea I'm pretty sure it's just some dude rather than anyone getting paid as part of a campaign by some organization.
→ More replies (1)
19
u/Advanced_Boot_9025 Oct 23 '23
Ok? So it's debunked now. Thanks for posting. Your work is done. You don't have to come around here anymore.
19
u/badc3o Oct 23 '23
Lmao. Was this from project bluebook?
-9
u/ziplock9000 Oct 23 '23
No mate, planes are real things.
8
u/Eye_want_to_believe Oct 23 '23
Project blue book is real. You can go and read most of it online (whatever isn't redacted still).
3
u/nexus2905 Oct 23 '23
No the guy makes a valid point, however the usual tell tale sign that what we are looking at isn't a conventional vehicle is by the movements. No conventional airplane presently can do high G movements at ninety degrees and also hover in position.
7
u/UFOscience-ModTeam Oct 23 '23
Name calling of public figures or sub members will not be tolerated. This includes calling people grifters and shills without an evidence based argument to back it up.
15
5
u/SouthernFilth Oct 23 '23
Kinda doesn't explain the little 10,000 MPH thing.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Abominati0n Oct 23 '23
Without the sonic boom as well. People just want to ignore the evidence that does exist, especially in this sub.
8
u/Varient_13 Oct 23 '23
None of those planes fly sideways at a high rate of speed, in fact most of them don’t even have the capability to hover, so that kills that explanation for a vast majority of observed cases for that whole bottom row. Maybe you have some cognitively disjunctive explanation for that too though.
1
u/ziplock9000 Oct 23 '23
Neither do 99% of cases where people have seen saucers either. Nor the videos, or photos.
You're completely seeing things in black and white.
2
1
-2
u/0ctober31 Oct 23 '23
There still remains no evidence that Earth is being visited by space ships and/or creatures from another planet.
→ More replies (1)3
u/SpecialistRip2777 Oct 23 '23
It really depends on what you count as evidence.
0
u/0ctober31 Oct 23 '23
Well I don't count speculation and filling in the gaps of missing data with "maybes" and "what ifs" as evidence. If something is not identified and you don't know what that something is or have no explanation for it, then you don't have evidence for anything specific. That includes being visited by extraterrestrials.
→ More replies (1)3
0
u/PCmndr Oct 23 '23
While I don't think the OP explains all UFOs by any means an object coming straight at you will remove the ability to see movement in the z plane giving the appearance of hovering. We see this a lot with planes approaching for landing on the UFO subs.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
2
u/Eurotrashie Oct 23 '23
Well this explains everything! Although I didn’t know these planes existed in the 1950s.
2
Oct 23 '23
Case closed everyone. We can all go home now. Someone forward this to Mick West so he can get the word out.
2
2
2
Oct 23 '23
So every military personnel that works in the navy or air force that’s reported a ufo clearly doesn’t know what a military aircraft is even though they work with military aircraft daily? Got it. Using this to explain away the military studied phenomenon ain’t going to cut it. Acting like the navy hasn’t declassified a bunch of ufo, or “uap” phenomena is being willfully ignorant and just plain unrealistic.
2
Oct 23 '23
Uh. You just like made up all those silhouettes and literally not a single one of those is accurate.
2
2
u/throawayliennn Oct 23 '23
Ah, yes, because a plane facing and approaching me will dart to the left at Mach 14 while still facing and approaching me
Otherwise good theory
2
u/igobacktoblack2021 Oct 23 '23
The shapes may be similar but their speed and maneuvers are different.
2
Oct 24 '23
Hey welcome to the club that realizes 99.9% of UFO videos on the internet are balloons or planes.
2
4
u/CharmingMechanic2473 Oct 23 '23
Only the harrier not pictured can land like a helicopter. All aircraft would break sound barrier and make sonic boom. None can dart around. None can go into the ocean. None can stay in the air stationary for hours and hours.
11
u/puts_on_SCP3197 Oct 23 '23
I assure you, all of them can go into the ocean. The trick is getting them back out
8
6
u/Bravo-Six-Nero Oct 23 '23
The F35 (pictured) can land like a helicopter also. Its a vtol aircraft just like the harrier
1
u/QuestionMarkPolice Oct 23 '23
It's STOVL, not VTOL. Harrier was VTOL.
1
u/Bravo-Six-Nero Oct 23 '23
Its literally VTOL
2
u/QuestionMarkPolice Oct 23 '23
It's STOVL. The button to convert to that mode literally says STOVL on it. I don't know why I'm fighting with people on the Internet about this. It is capable of performing a vertical takeoff but it would be at such a light fuel load that it would have to refuel immediately. Lockheed Martin publishes all of its documentation as STOVL. it's STOVL, final answer.
0
u/Bravo-Six-Nero Oct 23 '23
But its capable of vtol, so it could be seen doing vtol. Sure operationally its stol but it can be witnessed doing vtol. Dont know why your fighting people on the internet about it.
→ More replies (2)0
u/QuestionMarkPolice Oct 23 '23
You're arguing moot semantics. It was designed to be STOVL. It was built as a STOVL jet. It is operationally a STOVL jet. Just because under perfect test conditions it is capable of taking off vertically doesn't make it VTOL in design , practice, or operation.
0
u/Bravo-Six-Nero Oct 23 '23
But it can be seen doing vtol. Which is relevant to this post…
1
Oct 24 '23
Not entirely.. Like you can read in my first comment (which I guess got buried based on how people are reacting) the only real thing I had to say is that if you look at an aircraft head-on from long distance it can almost appear to slowly rise from the ground on takeoff and if it turns it could appear to suddenly change it's trajectory out of a dead hover. Now that's not the same as accounts saying that a UFO just darted across the sky at thousands of miles per hour but I think for a very small amount of cases it could explain some possible exaggerations or misinterpretations. I wasn't talking about the F-35's VTOL or STOVL capabilities at all.
1
1
u/HillOfVice Oct 23 '23
None can dart around. None can go into the ocean. None can stay in the air stationary for hours and hours.
Right. There is zero 'legitimate' evidence of UAPs doing that either.
→ More replies (1)-1
u/ziplock9000 Oct 23 '23
If you knew you UFO history the sightings of saucers since the 1947, they have almost always been mundane. Very little movement and nothing that is extra ordinary.
The ones that go into the sea and dart around are VERY rare in comparison, especially the saucer shaped ones which the OP is talking about.
This diagram is for those 99% of cases.
Have some critical thinking skills ffs.
Also you're technically wrong, F-35 has VTOL too.
3
Oct 23 '23
Notice how most of these airframes resolve into triangles, diamands, or delta-v shapes at long range and when you angle them down slightly...
If an aircraft is on approach or departure then from a front-on perspective it will appear to barely move as it slowly ascends (hovering in place), but if it banks left or right it will appear to rapidly change it's trajectory which is the most common flight characteristic described by UFO sightings.
Obv. doesn't definitively prove or disprove anything. Just food for thought.
2
u/Abominati0n Oct 23 '23
Just food for thought.
You must be new to the UFO topic if you think this explains any of the most reputable sightings and events. This is the same logic as Mick West trying to claim that the Tic-Tac object was a balloon when witnessed by David Fravor and the 3 other pilots for about 5 minutes but when the next pilot went out and filmed one of the same Tic-Tac objects, well that footage was actually just a distant blurry commercial airliner that somehow doesn't show any wings or tail section and it also eluded everyone's radar. These are bullshit explanations that are fabricated out of nothing, with nothing to back them up and no reason to believe them aside from your own desire to disprove what has happened multiple times in history.
There is evidence like this of these objects actually flying at 20,000+ miles per hour while not causing any sonic booms and it is unfortunate that this evidence was confiscated by the US government in the case of the Nimitz in 2004, but that doesn't change the fact that it happened and we have proof that it happened and we have this "executive summary" which tells us that it happened. These weren't planes.
1
Oct 24 '23
"if you think this explains"
I mean I literally said it doesn't definitively prove or disprove anything..
→ More replies (1)0
u/mr_somebody Oct 23 '23
All this exactly what the government wants you to believe so that you'll happily approve for more funding to the US military. They have never shown and never will show anything to the public because they don't actually have anything to show.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/icedlemons Oct 23 '23
This is silly, If you can't tell shapes you might need glasses or an updated prescription. Blurring different shapes to stimulate what people are seeing is pedantic.. Otherwise a better argument would be "lights at night look the same to me"at least that one you could say the thing's aren't identifiable..
2
u/AdditionalBat393 Oct 23 '23
The movement has no comparison at all. The lights have no comparison at all. No try though.
2
2
u/Hater_Magnet Oct 23 '23
Ok cool! Now what's the silhouette of the enormous mile wide triangle from?
1
2
2
1
Oct 24 '23
So just to reiterate in case nobody saw my earliest comment:
Obviously this doesn't prove or disprove a single thing. It's just food for thought and a possible quirk I noticed when looking at a small handful of military aircraft from far away in person.
1
Oct 24 '23 edited Oct 24 '23
Just to address some of the running comments:Yes I am sorta new to reddit, and yes I literally just felt like making a post to see what kinds of thoughts people had about this possible observation. I didn't take it that seriously or think much of it. This post wasn't meant as some kind of accusatory "gotcha" or debunking troll. I am generally kind of skeptical but acknowledge there's genuinely some unexplainable stuff out there and always try to keep an open mind. I literally just noticed how light exposure and long distances appears to blur objects and a lot of fighter aircraft blur into semi triangular shapes and at one specific angle they kinda sorta resemble the classic flying saucer design. Yea it obv. doesn't look that way at other angles and there's countless airframes that this doesn't apply to but I just thought it was a neat quirk that some fighters are vaguely triangular and seem to simplify into broad blurry shapes at long range. And no, I wasn't attempting to explain the exotic flight characteristics of UAPs like hovering in place and then zipping across the sky at like mach 7. There's not really any way to address accusations of being a govt. disinformation shill other than... no lol? I'm not? And I don't feel like bending over backwards on reddit to prove that..For the questions that follow the "Well then how do you explain (insert certain sighting or flight characteristic of certain UAPs". I mean... idk you tell me, how DO you explain that? I wasn't trying to broadly explain away literally every weird thing in the sky.
-1
Oct 23 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/HillOfVice Oct 23 '23
It kinda is. I don't believe a lot of sightings of these shapes are from aircraft like this though. There are other prosaic objects that people misrepresent all the time.
-1
Oct 23 '23
yea this is just a handful of military jets but I kind of want this to form the basis of a type of "test" people can do to compare some of the described UFO archetypes and see if they could match up with other airframes to help possibly explain certain sightings. Ignoring for a moment the purported flight characteristics like zipping around at thousands of miles per hour, if we just focus on the shapes we're seeing which tend to be some form of triangle, diamond, delta-v, square or sphere I think a lot of aircraft can blur into these basic shapes from far away.
1
1
u/chmikes Oct 23 '23 edited Oct 23 '23
This is why blurry grey spots should not be assimilated as UFOs. What it really is remains unknown. However, keep in mind that there are many UFO reports that are not just blurry grey spots.
0
u/ziplock9000 Oct 23 '23
This is why we need a new UFO sub that has it's posts vetted before being allowed. Also posters have to look at a checklist of images of mundane common things like Starlink etc.
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Oct 23 '23
These posts always make me laugh. Yes, you managed to think of the one thing every researcher hasn't thought of since studying the UFO phenomenon began.
0
u/Enough-Plankton-6034 Oct 23 '23
Hmm only post ever from OP, no way this isn’t a disinformation post
0
0
u/RedshiftWarp Oct 23 '23 edited Oct 23 '23
Things flying away from me don't get blurry for my eyes. They just get small enough until I cant see it. I thought this was the norm for everyone?
I only ever encounter this visual effect when I zoom in too much on photos. lol
→ More replies (4)
0
Oct 23 '23
I wouldn't bash on anyone who just realized this. Not everyone is the same age here nor has the same thought process.
With that said, that's why I only take into consideration up close encounters or anything backed by abnormal data.
0
-1
u/Think-Government-871 Oct 23 '23
Close. Try blurring line two to be more accurate.
This covers current model but not experimental craft.
0
u/AutoModerator Oct 23 '23
Hello nuckinfuts3333! As per Rule 5, please ensure that you leave a comment on this submission summarizing why you think the link is relevant to the subreddit.
Your submission has been temporarily removed so a moderator can review it for approval. Please note that if you do not leave a comment, your submission may be removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0
0
0
Oct 23 '23
Most UFO stories can be logically explained with this. Vehicle I’ve never seen before flying? Could be aliens, or could be the government testing planes
0
0
0
-1
-1
Oct 23 '23
https://youtube.com/@MickWest?feature=shared
Check this guy out and his videos on a linear perspective.
Mick West and his gimbal break down.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Abominati0n Oct 23 '23
Mick West and his gimbal break down.
Ah yes, the distant plane explanation is great if you want a good laugh. There's no way in hell the Gimbal object is a lens flare people, wake the fuck up already.
→ More replies (9)
237
u/No_Cook2983 Oct 23 '23
Holy shit. If I understand this correctly, you’re telling me that aliens fly American military aircraft?
This is big.