• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

UFO Diversity: Different Types / Shapes Seen Over The Years

I actually think there is a nucleus to some UFOs and they are surrounded by a metamaterial "balloon".
Excellent design, actually.
 
feinman said:
Good to see you back! I actually think that many are made from programmable matter and can change shape; the thin materials so oft described, the "metamaterials" that they are supposed to be made of would be able to change shape. Travel between mediums like atmosphere and water and space can be seen in many encounters and also leading edge technologies for NASA and the military, as are soft robotics for space exploration, Bigelow's inflatable space habitats, not surprisingly.. I think the objects I have seen are the same ones seen many times by others in the past, for example. and many of the UFOs are actually the same objects, so the number is more limited. I also think they are probably just ETs with advanced technologies we don't understand, and have a way to get here we can't easily trace.

I think the Nellis video gives a good example of this kind of tech, turning into a disc and other shapes too:
Click to expand...
I have thought this myself for many years. Like this example from science fiction:


I don't think they all have this capability.
 
feinman said:
Good to see you back! I actually think that many are made from programmable matter and can change shape; the thin materials so oft described, the "metamaterials" that they are supposed to be made of would be able to change shape. Travel between mediums like atmosphere and water and space can be seen in many encounters and also leading edge technologies for NASA and the military, as are soft robotics for space exploration, Bigelow's inflatable space habitats, not surprisingly.. I think the objects I have seen are the same ones seen many times by others in the past, for example. and many of the UFOs are actually the same objects, so the number is more limited. I also think they are probably just ETs with advanced technologies we don't understand, and have a way to get here we can't easily trace.

I think the Nellis video gives a good example of this kind of tech, turning into a disc and other shapes too:
Click to expand...
Well.... that video is so bad one can't get any real sense of what the object truly looks like or is doing.
And the explanation imho is weak . I don't see any logical reason why even very advanced alien craft would need to morph at all. To propose the need for this is pure speculation to try and remedy the multiple 'designs' seen. I'm also referring to many landed encounters ,etc where designs were often quite different. It simply doesn't answer the question for me. And we are talking about many stationary ufo objects seen going back many years as in the 50's and 60's where none of them seemed to change at all based on what people reported ,but remained in the shape they were seen in. Even looking at the charts above it's quite clear they are radically different in many cases and to think they are morphing for some technical reason is a bit silly to me.
For me this is not the answer. I think we need to consider alternative ideas.
 
dr wu said:
I don't see any logical reason why even very advanced alien craft would need to morph at all. To propose the need for this is pure speculation to try and remedy the multiple 'designs' seen.
Click to expand...
In atmosphere, a craft needs to be streamlined for optimal flight. Out in space, there is no need for streamlining, so a craft can be any shape. Usually, the optimal shape for space is probably a sphere, because it is the strongest shape.
 
Mythopoeika said:
In atmosphere, a craft needs to be streamlined for optimal flight. Out in space, there is no need for streamlining, so a craft can be any shape. Usually, the optimal shape for space is probably a sphere, because it is the strongest shape.
Click to expand...
That might be true for us....but we are dealing with the unknown and we have no idea what type of tech might or might not be required by 'aliens'. But even so that doesn't address the issue of multiple saucer and saucer like related ufo designs seen on earth from the time people started reporting them. Not to mention cigars, the spheres you mentioned, triangles, cone shapes, pears, oblongs, even rectangles....well you get the idea. This simply is not explained by the premise of ufos morphing when needed. Not to mention the wild variety of so-called'aliens' people have encountered over the many decades. So..what's wrong with this picture?
 
dr wu said:
That might be true for us....but we are dealing with the unknown and we have no idea what type of tech might or might not be required by 'aliens'. But even so that doesn't address the issue of multiple saucer and saucer like related ufo designs seen on earth from the time people started reporting them. Not to mention cigars, the spheres you mentioned, triangles, cone shapes, pears, oblongs, even rectangles....well you get the idea. This simply is not explained by the premise of ufos morphing when needed. Not to mention the wild variety of so-called'aliens' people have encountered over the many decades. So..what's wrong with this picture?
Click to expand...
I suspect that there may be more than 1 thing going on here all at the same time:
(a) Some of the craft can morph, some can't.
(b) There may be several types of aliens/whatever involved.
(c) There may be several different types of technology involved.
(d) There may be different models and manufacturers involved.
 
Mythopoeika said:
I suspect that there may be more than 1 thing going on here all at the same time:
(a) Some of the craft can morph, some can't.
(b) There may be several types of aliens/whatever involved.
(c) There may be several different types of technology involved.
(d) There may be different models and manufacturers involved.
Click to expand...

(e) Witnesses' observations, memories of observations and descriptions of what they experienced can vary quite a bit - even among multiple witnesses to a single event or sighting.
 
EnolaGaia said:
(e) Witnesses' observations, memories of observations and descriptions of what they experienced can vary quite a bit - even among multiple witnesses to a single event or sighting.
Click to expand...
I think that's a valid explanation for some ufo sightings and encounters and why many are even misidentifications of other things.
 
Mythopoeika said:
I suspect that there may be more than 1 thing going on here all at the same time:
(a) Some of the craft can morph, some can't.
(b) There may be several types of aliens/whatever involved.
(c) There may be several different types of technology involved.
(d) There may be different models and manufacturers involved.
Click to expand...
A-C could explain some instances but not the many different sightings and events over decades imho. D is a human concept..we have no reason to think aliens have 'models', etc.
I suspect the answer lies elsewhere.
 
Mythopoeika said:
Where?
Click to expand...
Well....somewhere other than routine space traveling aliens from alpha centauri who have different models of ufos.
I suspect this is more about human consciousness and the way we interact with the phenomenon whatever it is doing.
 
dr wu said:
Well....somewhere other than routine space traveling aliens from alpha centauri who have different models of ufos.
I suspect this is more about human consciousness and the way we interact with the phenomenon whatever it is doing.
Click to expand...
That does make sense --a Vallee approach, but I think we have to hold out the possibility that they are just ETs with advanced tech. Just like squirrels have no idea what we are up to. Or, and I think this is likely --they are both not from the planet and perhaps have some metaphysical aspects. If paranormal phenomena are real, you'd expect an advanced civilization to try and understand and exploit those effects.
 
About the different models / types indicated by the various descriptions ...

If one prefers the 'alien craft' interpretation it's entirely reasonable to speculate there could be different forms (sizes, shapes, configurations ... ) employed for different purposes. For example, consider the diversity of forms we (humans) have employed in our manned spacecraft and especially in our satellites, landers and probes.
 
A sufficiently advanced civilisation might design a new vessel for every mission. The fabricators they use could work like CAD printers, so they only have to imagine a design and it becomes reality.

Additionally some of the matter used might be morphologically variable; Feinman's 'smart matter'. That doesn't mean that there really are 'nuts and bolts' UFOs, but we can't rule it out.
 
dr wu said:
^Which begs the question.....do we have scores of different alien races vsiting us over the decades or do they change their models as we do our cars? Does any of this make sense when talking abut legitimate alien visitation?
One of the many reasons why Dr Vallee years ago in his books said the likelyhood is that we are not dealing with aliens from outer space but something else.
Any thoughts on this idea.....what else could it be?
Click to expand...

Beat me to it re Dr Vallee. Because we then have to add into the mix the multifarious observed UFO occupants, with everything from Bigfoot and giant silver-suited humanoids to the Communion and Hopkinsville goblin-types and many, many more.

If you haven't read Dr Vallee's investigations into this very paradox then I highly recommend you do so, they are all available on Kindle. You might not get definitive answers but at least he is asking the questions.
 
eburacum said:
A sufficiently advanced civilisation might design a new vessel for every mission. The fabricators they use could work like CAD printers, so they only have to imagine a design and it becomes reality.

Additionally some of the matter used might be morphologically variable; Feinman's 'smart matter'. That doesn't mean that there really are 'nuts and bolts' UFOs, but we can't rule it out.
Click to expand...

Then add to that the problems with just how unreliable eyewitness descriptions, can be, as backed up by numerous scientific studies.
 
feinman said:
I see. Okay so the illustration above was endorsed by him although he didn't draw it himself --it was in his book.
From Bruce Macabaee's site:
"
L)"When the objects were flying approximately straight and level, they were just a black
thin line and when they flipped was the only time I could get a judgement as to their size.
These objects were holding an almost constant elevation; they did not seem to be going up or
coming down, such as would be the case of artillery shells. I am convinced in my own mind that
they were some type of airplane, even though they didn't conform with the many aspects of the
conventional types of planes I know."


*******
COMMENT: In his letter Arnold included a sketch which shows the leading edge being nearly a
semicircle, with short parallel sides and with the rear being a wide angle convex (protruding) V
shape that comes to a rounded point at the trailing edge. (See also his recorded description in
the Appendix: half a pie pan with a convex triangle at the rear.) He wrote on the sketch that
"they seemed longer than wide, their thickness was about 1/20th of their width." His suggestion
that their width (or length) was about twenty times greater than their thickness may be an
exaggeration. The sketch he drew of how they appeared "on edge" has the dimensions 4 mm wide by
45 mm long (approx.) which suggests a ratio closer to 1/11. Although he did not mention it in
his letter, he later stated (e.g., in his book) that one of the objects had a somewhat different
shape. His book shows an illustration in which the object has a semi-circular front edge and a
rear edge that consists of two concave edges that join at a rearward pointing cusp at the center
of the rear edge. See below.

http://brumac.mysite.com/KARNOLD/KARNOLD.html


-TxBs_bvNjcYxhg2WVxZB8yMJ9hg9ewGbXNVqph4D7XrcCHEUpD9JrnhnDapXWqok7PokUFF3X-U1_P6O7_e9r42Oc0


So, Arnold said that one of the objects had that crescent form, while the rest had the obtusely-angled back portion.
I thin it just reinforces the metamaterial flexible / morphable nature of the craft.
Click to expand...
Judging by Arnold's original sketch, one of those objects if viewed from the side or head on could easily be recorded as "saucer shaped"
 
dannycheveaux1 said:
Judging by Arnold's original sketch, one of those objects if viewed from the side or head on could easily be recorded as "saucer shaped"
Click to expand...
Absolutely! And in order to effectively travel between one medium to another would require some shape change. There have been plenty of disc-shaped UFOs too:
http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/ndxshape.html
It's immediately clear from looking at the old articles that it became a catchall term for UFOs after Arnold was misinterpreted.
 
Let's set aside the craft shape for a moment. Assuming they are not "transparent" to matter, the sonic boom would still happen. Its absence points to the UFOs not being material. In this case, the shape is irrelevant, but this doesn't explain why things that are detectable by radars don't produce sound.

I'm going to take a risk here and say that most UFOs that are detectable by radar are classified government projects. The kind people see and even photograph (but without radar detection) are something else. It is wrong to lump all UFO sightings in a same category. One that I think deserves more study is the appearance of orbs near volcanic eruptions. Never forget that meteorites were denounced as crackpottery back in the old days (for your entertainment, read [ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...ped-establish-existence-meteorites-180963017/ ]). The existence of lightning know as sprite [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_(lightning) ] also used to be sneered on as delusion, until they started to be photographed.
Tangential reference to the ongoing mystery of the cerebellum's role and function has been spun off into a new thread:

The Cerebellum: What Is Its Role Or Purpose?
https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/the-cerebellum-what-is-its-role-or-purpose.69065/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Would it be accurate to say that whereas all flying saucers are UFO's, not all UFO's are flying saucers?
 
Tanglebones said:
Would it be accurate to say that whereas all flying saucers are UFO's, not all UFO's are flying saucers?
Click to expand...
I'd say that any flying saucer shaped phenomenon that is not positively-identified certainly fits the broad category of being a UFO.

And also that many unidentified flying objects seem to be seen in shapes other than that of a saucer.

Traditionally the commonly-reported alternative to a saucer was a cigar, or a fast-moving inexplicable source of light, but these seem to have been forced down the stats charts of non-saucer UFO sightings from late last century by alleged sightings of the swept-wing/triangle 'Aurora' apparition.

I've just remembered an odd but interesting comment made to me probably 40 years ago, regarding the (at-one-time wide) variety of shapes reported of putatively extra-terrestrial 'spaceships' (whether in reference to sketched recollections, witness statements or blurry b&w photographs).

An old (long-departed) friend fervently-claimed that people's reports of UFO shapes seemed to track very-closely with the general shapes of mainstream aerospace developments current to the era within which the incidental sightings took place. Just to be clear- he meant within the conscious pre-expectation of conditioned witnesses, not that they saw *these* known terrestrial craft.

  • Satellite parabolic dishes predefined a resonance of the classic saucer shape form-factor into the citizen psyche
  • Sputnik generated sightings of small round spikey silver 'alien' objects.
  • Apollo LM fomented sightings of taller/non-aerodynamic hat-shaped UFOs with legs and symbols.
  • Spacelab resulted in larger mothership / docking reports, and formation phenomena reports.
  • The Shuttle (and USAF Stealth/Spirit airframes) chrono-correlated with the Aurora/big black triangle phase of reports.
  • And now....well, exactly. What now? In this internetworked/camera-phoned/CCTVd/Youtubed/TicTocked world?? Very very little, in real terms, we have to say....
 
Tanglebones said:
Would it be accurate to say that whereas all flying saucers are UFO's, not all UFO's are flying saucers?
Click to expand...

Yes (basically ).

The label "flying disc" / "flying saucer" was the popular way to refer to UFOs when the early postwar UFO craze took off from 1947 onward.

Once the US Air Force became involved in investigating the growing number of reports, there was a need to define a class or category of things under which these "saucers" could be contextualized.

There were official USAF memos and letters at least as early as late 1951 that used the phrase "unidentified flying objects" in their titles. It's unclear how much earlier the phrase had been in use within USAF and / or intelligence service circles.

Formal USAF adoption of the label "unidentified flying objects" definitely occurred no later than early 1952, when Project Blue Book was established. Project Blue Book's first head - Capt. Edward Ruppelt - is widely credited as the person who developed and instituted the notion of "unidentified flying object" as formal terminology.

Air Force Letter 200-5, dated 29 April 1952, defined "unidentified flying objects" as:
“any airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type.”
Click to expand...

It's not clear whether this label was assigned a specific acronym at this point.

Air Force Regulation 200-2, dated 12 August 1954, provides the earliest formal specification of such an acronym as well as a modified definition:
2. Definitions:

a. Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOB) relates to any airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object.

b. Familiar Objects - Include balloons, astronomical bodies, birds, and so forth.
Click to expand...
Note that this earliest(?) official USAF acronym was "UFOB" rather than "UFO."

Both these early definitions could be applied to observed objects that didn't exhibit the form or appearance popularly attributed to a "flying disc" / "flying saucer." UFOBs weren't limited to such discs / saucers.
 
Ermintruder said:
I'd say that any flying saucer shaped phenomenon that is not positively-identified certainly fits the broad category of being a UFO.

And also that many unidentified flying objects seem to be seen in shapes other than that of a saucer.

Traditionally the commonly-reported alternative to a saucer was a cigar, or a fast-moving inexplicable source of light, but these seem to have been forced down the stats charts of non-saucer UFO sightings from late last century by alleged sightings of the swept-wing/triangle 'Aurora' apparition.

I've just remembered an odd but interesting comment made to me probably 40 years ago, regarding the (at-one-time wide) variety of shapes reported of putatively extra-terrestrial 'spaceships' (whether in reference to sketched recollections, witness statements or blurry b&w photographs).

An old (long-departed) friend fervently-claimed that people's reports of UFO shapes seemed to track very-closely with the general shapes of mainstream aerospace developments current to the era within which the incidental sightings took place. Just to be clear- he meant within the conscious pre-expectation of conditioned witnesses, not that they saw *these* known terrestrial craft.

  • Satellite parabolic dishes predefined a resonance of the classic saucer shape form-factor into the citizen psyche
  • Sputnik generated sightings of small round spikey silver 'alien' objects.
  • Apollo LM fomented sightings of taller/non-aerodynamic hat-shaped UFOs with legs and symbols.
  • Spacelab resulted in larger mothership / docking reports, and formation phenomena reports.
  • The Shuttle (and USAF Stealth/Spirit airframes) chrono-correlated with the Aurora/big black triangle phase of reports.
  • And now....well, exactly. What now? In this internetworked/camera-phoned/CCTVd/Youtubed/TicTocked world?? Very very little, in real terms, we have to say....
Click to expand...
Good point.

Also the 'phantom' airships that preceded the first airships. Then the ghost rockets of Sweden in the immediate aftermath of WW2 and the V1 and V2 Nazi rockets. Finally, drone-like UFOs in the 21st Century as drones have become commonplace.

To my mind it might be evidence for the "intelligent other" that distorts its true nature as it interacts with us humans
 
packshaud said:
Let's set aside the craft shape for a moment. Assuming they are not "transparent" to matter, the sonic boom would still happen. Its absence points to the UFOs not being material. In this case, the shape is irrelevant, but this doesn't explain why things that are detectable by radars don't produce sound.
Click to expand...
If the technology involves folding space, as has been proposed for a method of beating light speed, would that create a sonic boom? Would the craft still be visible on radar and what would be the effect of folding space in an atmosphere or indeed in a relatively strong gravitational field? I'm just asking I don't have a clue! :dunno:
 
Tanglebones said:
Would it be accurate to say that whereas all flying saucers are UFO's, not all UFO's are flying saucers?
Click to expand...
It would indeed and equally so that in more recent years, there seems to have been a reluctant acceptance that whatever Kenneth Arnold might have witnessed on 24 June, 1947 at the outset of contemporary ufolology, they were never depicted as nine round/disk/saucer shapeded objects by Arnold himself.

Not even one of the nine.

Having recently watched around 50 or so generic 'UFO phenomenon' videos, produced in the past 20-odd years, in search of specific material I was trying to track down, it was a surprise to find that in no instance was an attempt made to justify the objects looked like 'flying saucers', as popularised.

I noted that in a fairly recent documentary, even Nick Pope explained the misunderstanding, borne of course from Arnold's misconstrued 'saucer' simile, used to describe the nine objects' undulating flight characteristics, not their actual profile.

Whilst an archetypal 'flying saucer', was fervently believed to be the type of 'UFO' which pervaded, there were absolutely many other categories, notably 'cigar-shaped'.

Reports of our triangular--shapec UFOs go back to the early 1970s and I have highlighted a considerable number from that period - always keeping in mind these are only those reported I am personally aware of. How many other observations might there have been?

Interesting point, naturally, is that there are effectively none prior to then.

My primary reason for responding to this topic is that I have been only recently become aware of related and extraordinarily detailed research undertaken by ufologists in Germany.

Unfortunately, the following is inherently not in English. Nonetheless, even if the language isn't familiar, you will understand the gist if it.

With appreciation to Michael Landwehr and MUFON-CES:

https://www.igaap-de.org/literatur/literatur-der-igaap-und-mufon-ces/igaap-und-mufon-ces-berichte/

EDIT:

This is a direct download link - these are the main two publications referenced:

http://files.afu.se/Downloads/?dir=Magazines/Germany/IGAAP Bericht
 
Last edited:
Comfortably Numb said:
I noted that in a fairly recent documentary, even Nick Pope explained the misunderstanding...
Click to expand...
Evidently, this dates further back than I recalled:

"He said that the craft moved in a highly unusual jerking manner, totally unlike an aircraft.

When asked to elaborate, he explained that they moved, "like a saucer would if you skipped it across the water."

The media coined the phrase "flying saucer," and so began a modem mystery.

In fact, Arnold had described the objects as being shaped like a boomerang, and the saucer analogy applied to their movement, not their appearance.

But the media were not going to let the facts get in the way, and the public was misled into thinking that Arnold saw saucer-shaped craft, when the truth was he saw no such thing".

Nick Pope
'The Uninvited'
1997
 
EnolaGaia said:
The label "flying disc" / "flying saucer" was the popular way to refer to UFOs when the early postwar UFO craze took off from 1947 onward.

Once the US Air Force became involved in investigating the growing number of reports, there was a need to define a class or category of things under which these "saucers" could be contextualized.
Click to expand...
The elemental dilemma herein, is of course that ''flying saucers' remain a mainstay of 'popularised ufolology'.

Blindingly so and irrespective of what exactly Arnold might have come across, the origin of our archetypal 'flying saucer' could not demonstrably be more specious..

This catastrophic fact for those who would advocate otherwise, shall doubtless remain merely pernicious, especially when commercial interests are at stake.

'Dipomatic to the core'... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top