• 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

Tunn11 said:
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:
Click to expand...
For something to be visible, it has to absorb or reflect back light. You can "see" a planet transiting in front of the Sun because of the blocked light; something looks blue because it absorbs what we perceive as green and red light and reflects blue light. An object can of course also emit light.

I am going to speculate a bit. Let's assume the UFO matter is in an altered state that makes it "transparent." This poses a problem: the atoms that make the crew need to still be able to "function," keeping their bodies alive. It's like watching the umpteenth movie on enlarged or shrunken men and feeling like HAL in 2001 with his mind going. The atoms with the different size would not be compatible with the normal air atoms; people would suffocate. The relative wavelength of electromagnetic radiation would be altered; air density too. This never appear in movies.

I have come to hate most science fiction during the last years with a growing intensity. Just a couple of days ago I finished watching the first season of a show called Raised by Wolves. There is a scene on "humans becoming Neanderthals" and "devolution" that made me rage, like I was watching a really bad Star Trek episode. There are two things that Star Trek never handled well: sexuality and biology. Whenever the franchise touches any of these subjects monsters result. I won't provide any specific pointers to save your minds from the horror. And it's better if I stop straying offtopic now.
 
Quite agree a transparent craft would require a transparent crew and transparent controls, not good if one is reliant on visible light. I’ll press this invisible button with my invisible tentacle!

I think the idea of warping space in the craft’s direction of travel is a serious idea, albeit only theoretical at present to bypass the limit of lightspeed within the constraints of Einsteinian physics. This shouldn’t require the craft to be invisible but what does it look like to an outside observer? Would it produce gravitational lensing altering the appearance of the craft visually and on radar explaining some of the shapes/shapeshifting? Would it result in a sonic boom? Could it work as a propulsion system at sub light speeds?

It isn’t only SF films; documentaries that show the big bang as a flash of light with simultaneous sound all viewed from a distance in space that hasn’t been created yet!!!
 
Tunn11 said:
I think the idea of warping space in the craft’s direction of travel is a serious idea, albeit only theoretical at present to bypass the limit of lightspeed within the constraints of Einsteinian physics. This shouldn’t require the craft to be invisible but what does it look like to an outside observer? Would it produce gravitational lensing altering the appearance of the craft visually and on radar explaining some of the shapes/shapeshifting? Would it result in a sonic boom? Could it work as a propulsion system at sub light speeds?
Click to expand...
I am convinced this is pretty much how they are doing it, using a series of short hops to go faster without high-G effects on the occupants.
They can vary the length of the hops and the timing between hops.
To the outside observer, the craft would seem to be flying really fast or at certain speeds and hop frequencies, might seem to be flying in a jerky fashion.
As for appearing on radar... I've had a thought about that. The craft are probably not designed to be radar-invisible, hence the reason why they can be detected from time to time (probably when they are not doing the teleportation hops). When they are teleporting, the radar image may break up so much that the radar system's automatic clutter detection thresholds decide that it is 'background clutter' and excludes it from the radar scan altogether (effectively rendering it radar-invisible). Older radar systems don't have clutter reduction, so it's mostly newer hardware and software that might do this.
 
Here's a visual simulation of an Alcubierre drive spacecraft passing in front of the Earth at as speed of 1.5c, showing the optical distortion caused by the warp bubble. It is pretty impressive.


I would point out that the Alcubierre drive requires a gigantic amount of negative/exotic energy in order to function, which probably explains the disturbing optical distortions in this image. There is a modified form of warp drive know as the Van den Broeck drive, which encapsulates the craft inside a tiny distorted pocket of warped space. This tiny warp pocket would look much smaller from the outside, and would be more-or-less invisible, as well as having a smaller cross-section which would probably make it safer.
 
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...

IMHO the implied presumptive correlation (or not) between extraordinary motions and sonic booms isn't warranted - at least not in such absolute terms ...

For one thing, I don't think it's safe to conclude there aren't (and / or have never been) any sonic booms associated with observed UFOs. Certainly there are many cases of unidentified objects moving at seemingly fantastic speeds without the observer(s) reporting any boom. However, there are also many cases of unidentified booms (e.g., skyquakes) for which there is no report of any airborne object that may have caused them.

There are multiple reasons why a sonic boom may not be heard (or heard loudly enough to note) by someone who can see the aircraft that is causing one.

Airborne boom-producing objects can be sighted at distances sufficiently distant to delay the hearing of any sound for several seconds - enough time for an extraordinarily fast object to have moved out of sight by the time the sound is heard.

Ongoing research in terrestrial aeronautical engineering demonstrates that vehicle shape is indeed important in producing sonic booms, and there are experimental aircraft demonstrating configurations that mitigate or greatly reduce the classic sonic boom.
 
Seemingly, one upcoming 'UFO' shape being advocated for 2022 is a...

...'flying saucer'.

I note gaia.com are trailing a new Bob Lazar production and even Billy Meier's claims now resurfacing and being promoted online.

There are of course directly connected, with Lazar confirming the nine retrieved 'flying saucers' he avows helping to reverse-engineer, are identical to Meier's photographs.

That's why, of course, Lazar's replica model looks practically identical.

Compress_20220103_054708_8329.jpg


Compress_20220103_054708_8604.jpg



What's that phrase... "possession is nine-tenths of the law"?

For 'flying saucers' shall forever prevail.

Still not quite sure how you get around the problem, of there never actually having been any in the first place.

Is it perhaps similar to the issue where dinosaurs are a fact, so must have been on Noah's ark and lived in Biblical times.

You ignore the inherent dillema - 'fudge it' some might say - and simply focus on the overall popular belief.

Creationist Ufogy...?

It is what it is and what anyone wants it to be.

Expectations tend to prevail and there's always a market for that. :)
 
I've noticed that in a lot of the early SF films the discs are shown spinning. Where did that idea come from? If the whole thing is spinning the crew must be plastered to the inside walls.
 
I've read a great many books and articles on UFOs over the years, and heard a great many accounts of personal experiences - and I had my own sighting, a green, glowing disc or sphere, near Jasper, Alberta, in 1974 - but there is one characteristic of many sightings that has never, to my knowledge, been addressed - or if it has, I've missed it. Many UFOs, especially the boomerang-shaped examples, fly low over populated areas - the Phoenix sightings come to mind - showing bright coloured lights, or even searchlight-like beams. Certainly, not what one would expect if they wanted to be invisible.

The conclusion seems obvious; whoever, or whatever, is controlling the UFO phenomena WANTS THEM TO BE SEEN.

. . . . just not too closely! . . . .
 
Tunn11,

You are right.

From my experience of an actual daylight UFO sighting, it is nothing like what you see in movies or think.

I had a daylight UFO sighting in my younger days and I was lucky I could stop on the side of road for maybe a minute.

I would call it mundane, almost unnoticeable, and nothing was spinning.

The UFO was over a very small river and the river in that point was close to the road.
 
Alchymist said:
... there is one characteristic of many sightings that has never, to my knowledge, been addressed - or if it has, I've missed it. Many UFOs, especially the boomerang-shaped examples, fly low over populated areas - the Phoenix sightings come to mind - showing bright coloured lights, or even searchlight-like beams. Certainly, not what one would expect if they wanted to be invisible. ...
Click to expand...

Yep - it seems weird that they'd be displaying lights if they were trying to be inconspicuous. We've discussed this issue in:

Why Do UFOs Have Lights?
https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/why-do-ufos-have-lights.45424/
 
You have to “ go down the rabbit hole “ about lights.

Color lights to E.T.s is like our cell phones to humans, and not really meant for show but for communication.
 
I guess I somehow missed that other thread. But it certainly seems, judging from the Phoenix, Hudson Valley and Belgian sightings, and many others, that for reasons of their own, they want to be seen . . . but, as I said, not too closely. Close enough, so that we humans can concoct all kinds of "explanations" - and pseudoexplanations - for them, but not enough to come to any real, firm conclusions. Whitley Strieber, Jacques Vallee, Philip Imbrogno and others have speculated that "They" - whoever "They" might be - are trying to help us evolve into something more-than-human; but, constrained by something like the Star Trek "Prime Directive", they can't interfere more directly.

But, judging by our current state of political, social, and human-exacerbated environmental disasters, "They" might well be about ready to abandon us to our inevitable fate . . . .
 
Last edited:
Tunn11 said:
I've noticed that in a lot of the early SF films the discs are shown spinning. Where did that idea come from? If the whole thing is spinning the crew must be plastered to the inside walls.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I always assumed it had something to do with either the early spinning-tip rockets or scifi that included spin-induced gravity. I'd love to really know how it got into Earth vs. the Flying Saucers. It turns out, though, that the Juno (with the spinning tip) came after that, and I don't know how far back the spinning/gravity trope came up.
 
Tunn11 said:
I've noticed that in a lot of the early SF films the discs are shown spinning. Where did that idea come from? If the whole thing is spinning the crew must be plastered to the inside walls.
Click to expand...

plan-9-outer-space-ufo.jpg


Maybe to blur the image, so as to camouflage the imperfections on the cheap models they used?

maximus otter
 
If I was a prop guy with a saucer on a bit of string, I wouldn’t be able to resist spinning it for the camera to add some life to it. Also, if you try to balance a frisbee on your fingertip it just falls off. A spinning frisbee is much more stable.
So spinning plates are just better for the camera and no-one is going to pull you up and say ‘They don’t do that.’
 
We were watching a Twilight Zone clip yesterday that featured a stereotypical 1950s fraudulent artefact composed of two hubcaps glued together and thrown in the air 1950s flying saucer flying away with a cargo of shrewdly-abducted gullible Earthlings.

Dunno if that particular scene has been mentioned before. You could probably identify the make of car, as actually happened at some point. :chuckle:
 
Junopsis said:
Yeah, I always assumed it had something to do with either the early spinning-tip rockets or scifi that included spin-induced gravity. I'd love to really know how it got into Earth vs. the Flying Saucers. It turns out, though, that the Juno (with the spinning tip) came after that, and I don't know how far back the spinning/gravity trope came up.
Click to expand...

As far as the spin-induced gravity angle ...

Scientific analysis of, centrifugal / centripetal forces dates back to the 17th century.

The first person to suggest these forces could be used to simulate gravity in a rotating space vehicle was Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, in his 1903 Exploration of Outer Space by Means of Rocket Devices. This was the seminal work influencing 20th century visions of space flight.

The earliest acknowledged citation of a rotating space vehicle or station inducing artificial gravity was in Jack Williamson's 1931 The Prince of Space ...
... a cylinder 1520 meters long and wide which rotates to create artificial gravity.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_stations_and_habitats_in_fiction
 
If spinning UFOs in movies and on TV were based on any suggestion from science and engineering, it would probably have been in relation to aeronautical concepts involving ducted fans for VTOL craft (e.g., the AvroCar, Hiller platforms, and certain advanced concepts proposed and modeled but not prototyped in Nazi Germany during WW2). Some such concepts / models involved some type of rotating prop or compressor inside the outer perimeter of a "saucer."

Personally, I suspect it was simply for the sake of eye candy or stabilizing a model as Maximus Otter and Analogue Boy suggest.
 
Alchymist said:
I've read a great many books and articles on UFOs over the years, and heard a great many accounts of personal experiences - and I had my own sighting, a green, glowing disc or sphere, near Jasper, Alberta, in 1974 - but there is one characteristic of many sightings that has never, to my knowledge, been addressed - or if it has, I've missed it. Many UFOs, especially the boomerang-shaped examples, fly low over populated areas - the Phoenix sightings come to mind - showing bright coloured lights, or even searchlight-like beams. Certainly, not what one would expect if they wanted to be invisible.

The conclusion seems obvious; whoever, or whatever, is controlling the UFO phenomena WANTS THEM TO BE SEEN.

. . . . just not too closely! . . . .
Click to expand...
I think they do, but is that not the same as say alien big cats in the UK and elsewhere? to me they all seem part of the same phenomena, I remember reading about I guy who met with quite a tall member of the Fey in Ireland, on questioning him about his size the Fey said we appear as we want to appear which to me was one of the most telling statements in studying this phenomena
 
A timely article by prolific UFO/Paranormal author Nick Redfern:

https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2022...ever-changing-a-tulpa-thought-form-situation/

“The long-haired aliens of the 1950s were kicked into large-scale oblivion by the now-ubiquitous black-eyed beings known as the Greys: emotionless creatures whose points of origin are claimed to be light-years away, and who are motivated by nothing less than the large-scale abduction of human-beings as part of an attempt to create a hybrid species that will ensure the survival of the declining Grey race. The dire warnings of the aliens have changed too: at the height of the Cold War, the long-haired blondes spoke of the perils of atomic weaponry. In today’s world, however, it is global-warming and environmental destruction that the Greys seem so concerned about – something that mirrors exactly our own concerns on such matters. And, back then, there were those Flying Saucers with their seemingly ever-present tripod landing technology. They were all of the rage once. Now? No longer. Let’s not forget: it’s very much the same with aliens that, back in the 1950s and 1960s, endlessly seemed to sample our soil – and nearly always by the edges of roads and where they could be seen and startled by wide-eyed drivers. Do we hear much about the aliens sampling dirt, grass, plants, veggies and more today? Nah. They’ve gone.”
 
Paul_Exeter said:
A timely article by prolific UFO/Paranormal author Nick Redfern:

https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2022...ever-changing-a-tulpa-thought-form-situation/

“The long-haired aliens of the 1950s were kicked into large-scale oblivion by the now-ubiquitous black-eyed beings known as the Greys: emotionless creatures whose points of origin are claimed to be light-years away, and who are motivated by nothing less than the large-scale abduction of human-beings as part of an attempt to create a hybrid species that will ensure the survival of the declining Grey race. The dire warnings of the aliens have changed too: at the height of the Cold War, the long-haired blondes spoke of the perils of atomic weaponry. In today’s world, however, it is global-warming and environmental destruction that the Greys seem so concerned about – something that mirrors exactly our own concerns on such matters. And, back then, there were those Flying Saucers with their seemingly ever-present tripod landing technology. They were all of the rage once. Now? No longer. Let’s not forget: it’s very much the same with aliens that, back in the 1950s and 1960s, endlessly seemed to sample our soil – and nearly always by the edges of roads and where they could be seen and startled by wide-eyed drivers. Do we hear much about the aliens sampling dirt, grass, plants, veggies and more today? Nah. They’ve gone.”
Click to expand...

Redfern sums pretty well what is both the biggest challenge and one of the main points of interest of the whole phenomenon.

There is a quote from the astronomer A S Eddington which, although it long precedes the idea of 'UFO's, also sums up the problem pretty neatly:

We have found a strange foot-print on the shores of the unknown. We have devised profound theories, one after another, to account for its origins. At last, we have succeeded in reconstructing the creature that made the footprint. And lo! It is our own.
Click to expand...
 
SimonBurchell said:
The problem is, no-one ever really sees the same thing twice, each entity encounter not pulled out of hypnosis seems to be individually tailored. The ones that are "recovered" via hypnosis just can't be trusted as having happened as described (or indeed at all).
Click to expand...
We also have many different types of vehicles and probes that we send out to Mars, for example.
And I have seen many photos of these strange objects that appear to be similar. The problem is that they move too quickly to get a clear shot.
The Paul Trent McMinnville Oregon photos from 1950 for instance, appear to be the same object that is seen in France, and I believe a few other places.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top