Lets categorize some ufos

This thread is intended to find similarties in ufo features captured in photographs or on film, hopefully to give more weight to the evidence we already have. It is easy to dismiss one photograph as being fake but when we start seeing similar objects captured by different people and in different parts of the world, well thats a little harder to dismiss. I,ve only just begun to do this and very quickly can find several types that keep appearing.

So i'll begin with a couple of easy ones.

Could this object be the same? If you've ever scanned through the pics at UFO evidence You've probably already noticed this.

The Manta ray style craft.

www.ufoevidence.org...
www.ufoevidence.org...
www.ufoevidence.org...
www.ufoevidence.org...

The Sky serpents.

photos1.blogger.com...
photos1.blogger.com...
photos1.blogger.com...

The above pictures are from this site. He also draws comparisons to the Derbishire style ufo which I'd like to add to later.

www.ufoevidence.org...

Similiar to serpents.

www.ufocasebook.com...
www.ufocasebook.com...
www.ufoevidence.org...

More categories to come. Just too lazy to do this all at once.
I think UFO evidence has the best library of pics, anyone know of some other good resources?

How do you plan to categorize them? Shape/appearance, behavior, corporal/non-corporal, sighted with beings/without, sighted with abductions/with out? You said "Lets categorize some ufos". You should also post the critiria if you plan on doing that.

It's Class Aves.

There's a :bnghd: thread that identifies the first three as tern, waterfowl, and seagull respectively. The fourth is not as clear but clearly resembles a bird in flight.

^ I think that was a bit harsh.

All the OP is saying is that there has been reports of strikingly similar craft all over the world, and unless there is some global propaganda ring we don't know about then they are genuinely separate reports. The 'sky serpents' are a good example.

Originally posted by halfmask
How do you plan to categorize them? Shape/appearance, behavior, corporal/non-corporal

Yeah sorry, I meant visual physical characteristics. For instance the hat shaped UFO, the oviod etc.. I've seen some in unrelated cases that look like the gulfbreeze style ufos and many old photos that look like Adamski pics but aren't. Or simply two photos of what appear to be the same craft at different locations and captured by different people.

[edit on 30-12-2006 by squiz]

How is calling a clearly identifiable picture of a seagull over the bay harsh?

If we're going to make any progress sorting out the evidence, we have to separate the wheat from the chaff. If the same photos of the same birds and balloons keep getting mixed in with good photos, we'll never get anywhere.

And yes, I'm calling the "Sky Serpents" balloons. Tell me you can't see the red and blue party balloons in the third pic
photos1.blogger.com...

[edit on 12/30/2006 by eaglewingz]

Gah, that post wasn't directed at you, but the post above you. We must have posted at the same time. Sorry!

OK, Here's another example.
This pic from israel
photos1.blogger.com...
This vid apparently area 51
www.youtube.com...

Similiar to the derbishire ufo, Rense does a comparison here.

Interestingly the link above shows a picture of what looks like a camera artifact but here it is again.

www.ufoevidence.org...
and again
www.ufoevidence.org...
Although I think that it is more likely an artifact of some sort.

[edit on 30-12-2006 by squiz]

No worries, squiz, that's a good example of the hazards of examining UFOs on the Net

It seems to me that the trouble with finding good photos lies in the fact that is hard to find a good modern case with multiple witnesses and convincing physical evidence.

Cases are either so old they're hard to investigate (Battle of LA, UFOs over D.C. 1952 ) or have no physical evidence to speak of (Renlesham Forest, Varginha).

These are among the strongest cases in my book.

Footage such as the "Mexican wave" has its own problems. Multiple witnesses tend to mean a long event. A long event implies stationary or slow-moving objects. Which in turn implies a terrestrial explanation as the most likely. Somehow I don't envision alien spacecraft drifting across the sky. But I could be wrong.

Originally posted by squiz
This thread is intended to find similarties in ufo features captured in photographs or on film, hopefully to give more weight to the evidence we already have. It is easy to dismiss one photograph as being fake but when we start seeing similar objects captured by different people and in different parts of the world, well thats a little harder to dismiss. I,ve only just begun to do this and very quickly can find several types that keep appearing.

IMHO your criteria is no basis for determining veracity of alleged sightings

many " iconic properties " of UFO types , and EBEs defining charaterisics have been freely availiable for years , creating a knowledge base , from which a potenial faker can draw inspiration , adamski springs to mind here . but heck alien visuals are everywhere - even bugs bunny had a martian nemesis , who rode around in a dircoid craft with flashing lights .

pluss - to truely play devils advoicate :

i could claim that a lack of commonality between wiitness reports was an even better idicator that each is a genuine stand alone sighting , as it shows that there is no " culture of collusion "

i have no direct evidence of this in UFOogy - but in other fields i have ample experience of people " getting thier story straight " where , ussualy in the aftermath of RTAs , 2 or more parties will conspire to massage thier witness statements so as to be mutally suportive .

getting back to UFOogy - " adamski type " is used as a descriptive / quantifier in several alleged sightings - and that is IMHO a blatant attempt to appeal to numbers . as i have noted , adamskis images have been availiable for years - so its too easy for a lazy faker to copy them , in the hope that others will reach the conclusion you did .


and again , playing both sides of the fence :

in police investigations , police are far more suspicious of " perfectly " pat interlocking statemenst that 101% back up the other , with no contradiction or unique perspective on any level .

i am not being contrary , its just that your premise can be inverted .

Originally posted by eaglewingz
No worries, squiz, that's a good example of the hazards of examining UFOs on the Net

It seems to me that the trouble with finding good photos lies in the fact that is hard to find a good modern case with multiple witnesses and convincing physical evidence.

Thanx eaglewings I edited that post mostly to save face but it didn't add to what I was originally intending, you are right though it is difficult to compare one blurry pic with the next, and I'm am skeptical but prefer to leave some things in the I don't know pile, It's getting pretty big now.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
getting back to UFOogy - " adamski type " is used as a descriptive / quantifier in several alleged sightings - and that is IMHO a blatant attempt to appeal to numbers . as i have noted , adamskis images have been availiable for years - so its too easy for a lazy faker to copy them , in the hope that others will reach the conclusion you did .

I understand your reasoning here, I was thinking of this especially in regards to Adamski, I haven't actually reached any conclusions yet, and probably won't until I know through personal experience. It seems that many older ufo pics are of a different style to what we see today, so that may be a clue to whether its arstic liscence on the hoaxers part or just older models of alien spacecraft

Here's another type.

www.ufoevidence.org...
www.ufocasebook.com...
www.ufoevidence.org...
www.ufoevidence.org...
www.ufoevidence.org...

and maybe this one
www.ufoevidence.org...

This one seems to have spanned over 50 years, So do hoaxers copy previous hoaxers meaning there all fake?

Well the UFO I seen a few years back was a giant triangle shaped craft and I have heard and seen lots of reports of similar craft. The UFO types I have seen on film and video which I think are real do seem to have a few differant classes of ships or whatever they call them:

Classic Saucer- The most commonly reported shape of a UFO and is believed to be the most used form of alien/shadow government transportation.

Triangular- Numerous reports world wide also of ttriangular shaped UFO, just look at all the UFO evidence to see the many variants of triangular craft.

Cigar shaped- As far back as the 1800's in America cigar shaped UFO reportings have been pilling up, in present time IMP alot of the cigar shaped UFOs can be attributed to space debris and rocket boosters in orbit.

Glowing orbs- Very strange UFO's imo and some of them have been reported to morph shape and size while performing stunning manuvers in flight then disapearing from sight or speeding off.

There is lots more differant styles of UFO's recorded and its definatly a good idea to catalouge and try and see where the simularities and differaces are so we hopefully get closer to the truth.

The sky serpents where new to me,havent seen them before.
Regarding those manta pics,I couldn´t see them.Maybe the site was done or something?Anyway, contributing with 0 to this topic,I leave with a thanks for the presented pics.

This thread makes me believe less in the possability of aliens being on Earth than before.

These photographs are horrible. It makes me believe more now that these are all faked or literally UFOs, objects which cannot be identified but have nothing to do with aliens.

For instance, those snake things. They seriously do look like balloons and only balloons. The manta thing, I don't know. I can't really tell, I don't think it's a bird, but at the same time I don't think it's anything at all of importance. I can't say what it is because I don't know, but I doubt it has anything to do with aliens.

And the last photograph where you can see the back of the guys head looks fake. I mean, come on. Just look how down blurred the UFO is. I think it's just ridiculous but eh. Thats me.

Categorizing something you don't know for sure sounds like a silly thing to do. Especially when you don't have anything tangible to make a categorization on.

Squiz,

www.ufoevidence.org...
www.ufocasebook.com...
www.ufoevidence.org...
www.ufoevidence.org...
www.ufoevidence.org...


all of these pictures are most likely a VRIL craft
back engineered by some nazi scientist back around the 1950's.

www.eyepod.org...

And the other "UFO" pics u posted are really not so convincing since I can clearly see a bird and ballons.

don't beleive every UFO picture is authentic.

I think alot of the stuff on ufo evidence is computer generated 3d renders.

Ok, this is my last post towards this thread, I did have some more obeservations to post but from the responses I think it would be more of an excercise in futillity, I was not out to provide proof of anything just to highlight some coincidences, and perhaps learn some more from others willing to look and find other examples, and to look at the body of evidence rather than individual photos or videos.
I am skeptical but also open minded, if thats possible. I have seen UFOs before in the literal sense but based on what I have seen my logic can't allow me to jump to the conclusion of alien spacecraft. So it doesn't bother me if people think for example that the sky serpents are ballons, and I would be willing to accept that if someone could provide some proof do some research find out if ballons are launched in a enormous tube like that, get some pictures of them before launch etc.. instead of looking at couple of pictures and saying yeah they're balloons, I think thats just as irresponsible as saying they are alien spacecraft. The fact is that similar things have been filmed from space, and one of those images I posted was taken at 35000 ft, do party balloons fly that high? I don't know. And wouldn't something like that be a hazzard if it drifted into commercial airspace? More thought needs to go into these claims.

We have to look at the big picture all of the evidence. We need logical and well researched skeptics here with the abillity to go where the evidence leads them regardless of personal opinion.
And Cid if this thread makes you believe less then I'm glad I can help, Many of the photos on UFO evidence are the same you see all over the net, I thought most here would be familiar with the photos that are available. Actually not as many as you might think.
UFOs have already been categorized in a broader sense as a previous poster had mentioned, and you can bet those in the know have done this. it seems like a logical thing to do. Hardly pointless, but that's my opinion.

Thanks to those few who had something to offer.



[edit on 1-1-2007 by squiz]