“Was it as big as the moon close to the horizon? Or as big as the moon when it’s high up overhead?”
Still a helluva lot better than asking the size outright; And likely to get you the same ballpark answer in either case.
Recently there has been a trend to start calling them UAPs; Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. Hoever, even that is slightly misleading; many UAPs are caused by celestial objects, which are far beyond the atmosphere - does that count as an ‘aerial’ phenomenon?
I’ve tried that, with varying results; if you ask them to compare the size of the sighting to (say) a dime at arm’s length, you might get one answer, and if you ask them to compare it to the Moon you might get a similar answer - but any astronomer would tell you that the Moon is much, much smaller than a dime held at arm’s length.
People are very bad at estimating sizes and distances, even when you give them concrete and well-known objects to compare them with.
ufologists already believe in UFOs, by definition. the government releases will not make us more believers. but if released, it could give us some more info. (note that I use ufologist broadly. I don’t consider myself a scientist.)
with that said, self-described debunkers will react the same way whether governments release files or not.
“many ‘ufologists’”. bit of a weasel word there when you say “many”. sure, you’ll find some less and other more smart people in any field.
the majority of “UFOs” will have mundane explanations, yes. but not all of them. (excuse the AI artwork. I hate AI artwork! but then I didn’t create the SubStack.)
yeah, I know about that. I once walked past an Egyptian sarcophagus in my haste to get to a particular place.
the bigger topic has to do with preconceptions working to edit our reality on an unconscious level. and denial of UFOs fits the idea that our minds screen out info that challenges our preconceptions too much.
The reverse is also true, of course - one guy’s report of weird things he saw in the sky sets up preconceptions for other people to look at the sky and interpret everything they see as an unusual, culturally relevant item - an angel, a blimp, a drone or a UFO. I’ll cop to a preconception that UFOs are misinterpretations of manmade phenomena (the UFO I saw was one of these), misinterpretations of natural phenomena or actual hoaxes, but at least I have the satisfaction of knowing that some cases have been proven to be MoMP, MoNP or AH.
Thank you for confirming that talking with/to “ufologists” is a complete waste of time.
I move that they be called FOYCIs.
Flying Objects You Can’t Identify.
I haven’t seen Garrett Graff’s book mentioned yet. I think it’s worth a read for anyone interested in the history and lore of the subject. UFO: The Inside Story of the US Government’s Search for Alien Life Here—and Out There
As Mick West has repeatedly demoinstrated, the ‘five observables’ are all prone to misinterpretation and can all be produced by mundane events. He gives many examples where all of these observables can be caused by mundane phenomena.
The five observables are;
- Sudden and instantaneous acceleration
- Hypersonic velocities without signatures
- Low observability (includes “inability to gain a clear target picture”)
- Trans-medium travel:
- Positive lift
Number 3 makes all the others redundant in my opinion, since if you can’t see it clearly, all the other ‘observables’ are clearly not observable at all.
Trump has appointed a Government ‘Ufologist’:
A scientist whom the White House appointed to lead an outside group on the national security risks of UFOs says aliens wouldn’t care who the president is.
Good to know a scientist can make predictions without any evidence. 
Avi Loeb is a real astronomer, and might be a good choice; I’ve communicated with him (once) in the past and he was sensible enough.
But his obsession with 'Oumuaua (the recent extrasolar asteroid/comet) is a litlle disturbing. Most astronomers see nothing particularly unusual about this object, apart from the fact that it has arrived (very, very slowly) from interstellar space.
What are those things?
Sorry - I was abbreviating the phrases in an earlier sentence - Misinterpretations Of Manmade Phenomena, Misinterpretations of Natural Phenomena or Actual Hoaxes
Ah… I see. Thanks.
“observable” does not have to mean observable by the naked eyes of humans. biologists had observed genetics, for instance, prior to taking photos of DNA. that applies to quite a lot of other scientific phenomena too.
Of course not. The evidence available to the All ARO includes va wide range of inputs, including infra-red cameras and radar returns.
The evidence from all of these sources need to be analysed critically; it turns out that none of the evidence (available so far) unequivocably suggests that these phenomena can only be explained by unknown or alien technology.
There have been a fair number of incidents reported by reliable individuals over several decades that are pretty damn strange, and certainly nothing produced by then-current or current human technology.
An interesting book, that I find well sourced is “UFOs and Nukes” by Robert Hastings. He goes into several historical security incidents at nuclear missile sites. The problem with the nuclear weaponry, aviation, and the military in general, anything weird that might happen tends to be a career killer. “You didn’t see anything, right?” is pretty good advice for anyone that doesn’t want to lose their secret clearances and things like that. The author also finds a nexus between UFO security breaches at missile sites and the cattle mutilations that were prevelant in the 1970s in particular.