Ufologists have done that. a lot.
but its that said, I don’t think that entity encounters involved a literal humanoid (or whatever… they don’t always look humanoid). more like the intelligence behind the encounter putting on a Halloween costume, including (at times) a “spaceship” set.
I have gotten requested (or more or less requested) to provide a summary of my views. that would take a while, especially since I would like to try to use as few words as possible.
with that said, I have here a good summary of physical evidence for UFOs. this does not describe entity encounters.
So this is a physical phenomenon.
I really don’t agree.
Actually boarding an alien spaceship and meeting aliens is far easier to prove than blurry pictures of something in the sky!
And “UFO”, by its very definition, also means many things. It encompasses things like aircraft – conventional or experimental – weather balloons, meteors, stars and planets, hoaxes, hallucinations, and outright lies.
So the answer to the OP question “what are UFOs if they’re not alien spacecraft?” is that it’s not a valid question because UFOs are not a specific phenomenon that needs to be explained, but just a broad category of mythology.
I’m a firm believer in the existence of life elsewhere in the universe, including intelligent life, but given what we know about the universe and the fundamental constraints of interstellar travel, the chances that alien beings have ever visited Earth are so close to zero that “zero” is an excellent approximation.
in part, yes.
blurry in some cases and clear as day in other instances. go through the YouTube channel of Angry Astronaut for examples of the latter.
with that said, I doubt a lot that “alien spacecraft” explain this. as I have said, I doubt that the NHI come from space and they may have craft (if any) that would defy out concept of “craft”.
when I say UFO (or for that matter UAP) you know just what I mean. semantics-based quibbling achieves nothing.
I consider UFOS “real” (weird as hell, nothing humans could replicate) but not likely not extraterrestrial.
It’s not semantic quibbling. It’s a plain statement of fact: there are so many different explanations for alleged UFO sightings, and such tremendous physical constraints in the universe reducing the possibility of any UFO sighting actually being alien spacecraft to a probability of essentially zero, that any other explanation, no matter how incredible, is far more likely.
Not many ‘good’ quality cases there. The first, Hannah McRoberts photo, was apparently not seen by the witnesses. This could be a simple emulsion flaw in the film, or possibly a deliberate hoax.
More or less, why has nobody ever gotten a higher resolution photo than this?
The second photo, the Lago de Cite photo, was also not seen by any human witness, and does not stand up to careful analysis.
This image is supposed to have been taken by a high-flying photo reconnaissance aircraft, but the reflections in the surface of the supposed object show a series of light and dark streaks that resemble the interior of a room. This suggests that the anomaly was not present when the photo was taken, and is probably just another emulsion flaw or an artifact that occurred during development.
From that same link, the Council Bluffs case looks likely to be an accidental spillage of thermite, perhaps associated with railroad track repairs.
The TicTac case has also been extensively examined elsewhere, and here’s Mick West’s analysis of the FLIR clip
The motion caught by the camera was not ‘impossible’, but easily explained.
Not in a digging mood right now so, since you brought it up, could you please give us a direct link to one of those clear as day photos.
But, but… I was told that on the seventh day, God rested. So not much happened that day.
Unfortunately, people have thought about this story before: hence the belief that aliens wield anal probes.
Honestly… I don’t know how it got there, nurse!
