Appearance of UFO's over time.

I am a firm believer in ET's/UFO's but stumbled onto an interesting find.

Now, I am not saying this is the case in all instances but from what I am noting it seems a generalization.

It seems that photos of alleged UFO's seem to look more advanced over time. (And I use the word alleged specifically because I feel my finding, if looked into on a more careful, scientific level could be beneficial towards the thought that UFO's are nothing more than military craft, whether or not it is purely man made or reverse engineered from actual Alien Craft. Neither of which I will lean towards more than the other)

I won't post pictures because I can honestly say that I wouldn't feel comfortable labeling certain photos with a specific time line. But looking around the forums it seems that older photos of UFO's seem primitive, at least as far as craft that tend to defy the laws of physics can be called primitive. Whereas more recent photos look far more advanced.

-GH

Yeah, this is pretty easy to explain, basically people are lying, and back in the day they had a way different picture of ufos on movies and whatnot then we do today. so basically, they are mostly all dirty liars.

it seems during the last century they certainly got more advanced with time but if you look back at religious art work and ancient depictions of flying machines then this trend doesn't seem to apply.

What that means I really don't know but i think it's quite important.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by Frakkerface]

I'll agree that a good portion (Far too much, sadly) of people who claim to have seen UFO's are liars. For attention or boredom or whatever their intentions are.

But I would like to look more into this and I am starting to put together a number of photos (specifically ones I can find that are dated) to try to make at least some sort of connection between the times and the appearance of the craft.

Whether or not this could be proof of ET's (Which I firmly believe exist) I think at the very least could shine some light on the reverse engineering of crashed saucers, or saucers obtained by other means.

-GH

I have recently started getting more involved I guess you could say in the field of Ufology. Out of a general interest and a sighting I had over a decade ago. If anyone is interested in some sort of "project" involving this.. pattern I guess you could say, message me. It could be fun.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by GeorgeHale]

reply to post by GeorgeHale


I wouldn't go as far as Murphy but I have noticed that as well. Many UFOs seem to look similar to design styles from the time when they were 'sighted'.

The only conclusion I can come up with is that many sighting are dreams or outright lies.

However, maybe the UFO I and others saw up fairly close at the end of te '70s was from the military and was either remote control or had dwarf pilots. Also we must be hundreds of years more advanced that we appear. I'm sure with that sort of tech we wouldn't be fighting the silly little wars we do.

PS Have a look at the excellent threads by Karl12 and SkyFloating to see reported aliens and craft over time.


[edit on 4/3/2010 by LightFantastic]

UFO's do appear to conform to the Earthly technical aesthetic of the time period they were 'photographed' or reported in. Those that do are probably bunk IMHO.

It's funny how we don't see Adamski or Meier craft anymore huh!

Coincidentally, Black Triangles are all the rage now... the same time period in which Stealth Craft are considered cutting edge technology. Add to that, massive motherships that blot out the sky have never been so popular since Independence Day came out in the cinemas. I wonder why that is huh

IRM

[edit on 4/3/10 by InfaRedMan]

Originally posted by GeorgeHale
But I would like to look more into this and I am starting to put together a number of photos (specifically ones I can find that are dated) to try to make at least some sort of connection between the times and the appearance of the craft.

I can point you to a great resource for your project- ufocasebook has 11 pages of UFO photos in chronological sequence. Here's the link to page 1:

www.ufocasebook.com...

I just scanned through all of them to see if your theory holds true, I think partially it does, partially it doesn't.

The biggest jump in structure I saw was in the 1987 gulf breeze photos, you can see a clear structure of the craft which is more complex and distinct than most earlier photos.

The other big difference I noticed is that in more recent years there are more triangle or delta craft, which are probably secret military craft, which is a definite trend in the photos.

I tended to ignore anything I knew was a known hoax such as the drone hoax, it's probably the most complex photo shown, but when you leave those out, the trend isn't real clear, you still see plenty of orbs, cylinder or cigar, and saucer shapes recently as many years ago.

I find the different descriptions of UFO's over time somewhat disconcerting.
There's the cigar shaped object that crashed in Texas in 1897.
Many UFO's from the '50's and '60's have a saucer shape.
Humans look for something familiar when describing the unknown.
Kinda like Ezekiel and his wheel within a wheel.

Originally posted by Lacenaire
I find the different descriptions of UFO's over time somewhat disconcerting.
There's the cigar shaped object that crashed in Texas in 1897.
Many UFO's from the '50's and '60's have a saucer shape.
Humans look for something familiar when describing the unknown.
Kinda like Ezekiel and his wheel within a wheel.

Yes maybe people embelish rather than completely invent what they saw. I suppose a saucer from the side could be considered cigar shaped as well.

Looking at the link Arbitrageur had posted briefly I can see where some of my theory, or opinion rather, can be taken as meh at best.

I am, however, noticing some small details which I want to look into more in depth later today after I work and will share.

I appreciate the input as well, both negative and positive.

-GH

This thread by Karl 12 would be an excellent addition to this one:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't know. With the exception of a couple design shapes I would say any one of the saucers could pass as state of the art design. Especially the alleged Roswell craft. Most seem pretty spiffy to me.

This is a good topic. infraredman has it right.
There is a marked progression in the apparent technology of UFO's which appears to keep pace with, if not human engineering, then at least our perceptions of high technology. This is one of the biggest questions, and for me, the source of my greatest doubt about UFO's. Dont get me wrong. I believe these objects exist, i've seen one up close myself, hovering a mere 60 feet over my head, but the rational side of me still wants to try and explain away what others might be seeing.

One of the few explanations that seems to fit is the Nazi connection. German scientists in the 1940's work on antigravity propulsion then, a mere two years after the war something crashes in the region where we test nuclear devices. Barney Hill described the creatures he saw aboard the craft that reportedly abducted both he and his wife, as wearing Nazi uniforms. Witnesses report that the object which crashed in Kecksburg, PA, resembled the infamous 'Nazi Bell' and, if you believe the tales, many early UFO pictures resemble the Vril and Haunebeau craft. (which came first, who's to know)
Early UFO reports are rife with accounts of crashes, which indicates the possibility of a technology still in development.

So, if UFO's are a human (or terrestrial) based technology, stumbled across and secreted away from us by whomever, it may explain why their composition mirrors our technological understanding.

If alien technology advances at a similar rate (or faster) than human technology, then UFOs should very well look different over time.

There are certainly some things to consider:

1) Yes, many UFO witnesses are likely either lying, or are simply mistaken in what they've seen. This could certainly cause some embellishment.

2) In cases where an actual sighting may have occurred, its possible that in the absence of evidence, the clarity with which the object was seen was exaggerated, and in doing so, incorporated elements of the witness' own aesthetic biases....

3) Most UFOs in older art are not UFO's but misunderstood symbolism, that a few courses in Art History could alleviate... Not to say there aren't still some intriguing examples though... The anthropomorphic sun and moon are a prime example, as are works picturing the holy ghost as a golden disk with a beam of illumination going to biblical figures (usually Mary).

4) Our aesthetic styles change, so who is to say the aliens don't care about style? We simply don't know enough about it to make the claim.

Still, all that said, the OP raises an intriguing point, and it is a point that can be backed up by sighting accounts. However, equally supportable, are the numbers of craft shapes that DON'T seem to have changed for decades....

Good observation...the craft that are man-made, I believe, do show improvements in design and function. Others, the true alien craft, seem to stay the same....maybe due to being time/dimension travellers.
Refer to ancient drawings, midievel paintings, descriptions from ancient and even 17th-19th century texts.

For instance,there comes a point when a design becomes standardized.... a car still follows essentially the same layout as a wagon. Except for the Stealthseries of craft, most all planes/jets follow much the same design and layout from80 years ago.

Another theory which has intrigued me is the idea that UFOs are "time travelling tourists." So, like when you travel and visit different destinations in your family car, the time travelers use the same vehicles when they visit different times...so, the same UFO craft seen in the Bible will next be seen in 12th Century Germany, it blew a gasket...threw a rod, and wrecked in the desert at Roswell circa 1947. Call AAA and a tow truck...LOL.

The descriptions of UFOs have certainly changed over time in some respects. Many reflect the sci-fi portrayals of the period and loosely tie-in with the mainstream success of iconic movies and popular fiction.

Skyfloating's The idea of Flying Saucers pre-1940s shows book and comic covers of UFO discs. They reflect the descriptions that would become archetypal to ufology. What came first...description, portrayal or reporting?

The rash of B-movies that featured aliens and spaceships coincided with the great UFO flaps of the early to mid-50s UFO flaps. Again, what came first? Were all sightings predicated on media presentations? Was Hollywood informed by UFO reports or were witness perceptions dictated by Hollywood? These are important and difficult questions...

Cigar-shaped craft seem to have their origins in the emergent technology of airships of the late 19th century. It's likely that newspaper reports and sightings of airships led to a predisposal towards describing and misidentifying UFOs as cigar-shaped. It's worth pointing out that 'cigar-shaped craft' are still reported today.

The most recent evolution in UFO descriptions is the 'black triangle.' Sizes vary, but the basic account of near-silent triangles cruising over population centres is consistent. The initial heyday of triangle sightings occurred in the late 70s. Can you think of a 70s sci-fi movie that features triangular motherships? Star Wars? Of course, stealth technology was beginning to favour the triangle/delta shape from the mid-sixties and the first triangle UFO reports began at that time....

Perhaps the most static description of UFOs is the sphere/orb/light. These one-time 'Foo Fighters' are still being reported with great frequency. They aren't as subject to popular mythology or media influence as the discs, cigars and triangles.

We've got the well-known statistic that around 5% of UFO reports remain 'unexplained/unidentified.' Spheres, discs, triangles and cigar-shapes continue to fall within this figure of 5%. Therein lies the mystery that keeps us all interested and intrigued...

Originally posted by LightFantastic
The only conclusion I can come up with is that many sighting are dreams or outright lies.

LightFantastic, I'm sure some folks are lying (or mistaken) when it comes to UFO testimony but quite a number of these incidents also involve ground trace evidence ,electromagnetic interference evidence, radar evidence etc.. which tends to corroborate their story.

Heres some very interesting UFO testimony from a lady in Staffordshire in 1954 - call me gullible but I don't think she's lying.





Cheers.

reply to post by karl 12
If there is corroborating evidence, it doesn't mean that witnesses aren't lying, or that they aren't filling in the gaps in their recollection with imaginary details.

I know what it's like to reshape memories by retelling a story over and over. Each time you tell it, you tell the story a little bit differently. Subconsciously, you fill in details which you think should be there, but can't recollect, with things that nearly fit your recollection, or with assumptions about what you must have witnessed, based on the other details of your recollection. You may even embellish a story out of a subconscious desire to meet the expectations of your audience, or to compensate for a story that has no meaningful resolution. It may be some time (maybe years) before you realize the subtlety of how you are contorting your recollection.

Today, I strive to be mindful of any changes I make to a story which deviate from actual fact. This, however, can sap nearly all the fun out of the relating of a hazy memory.

[Oh, and the tie in with the OP, is that I buy into the idea that changing cultural influence, combined with the effect on recollection that story telling has, (which I describe here from personal experience), is strongly related to the changing appearance of UFOs over time.]

I spent a little bit of time looking at the link that Arbitrageur posted, again.

Though a lot of the pictures I looked at were too blurry to make much of any claim of some of them I found intriguing.

Some of the bigger observations I have made by this point:

1. The quality of lights on the crafts. It could mean nothing but it is something that caught my attention. Though it could all fall on the quality of film and that advancement of our own technology as far as cameras go.

2. In some cases, some of the crafts that are simliar in general shape tend to get sleeker. (Again, right now I can't prove that, it could be because of the quality of the film) Whereas photos that seem to be obvious fakes seem to look more and more like something out of a Dr. Who episode which I guess is almost completely irrelevant to my original post.


Something I had also noticed. Which I will state outright that contradicts my claim entirely is that some of the similiar shaped crafts seem almost unchanged. Which for a period of 60+ years seems a little... incredible might be the right word.

I get new glasses tomorrow and plan on looking into a handful of pictures more in depth once I get them.

I appreciate the feedback (still).
And will say it is refreshing to have a community to talk to about stuff of this nature that doesn't get scoffed at but can still have a number of disagreements, but, isn't that why we are all here? To get the truth?

-GH

EDIT: I know from my experience, thinking back, that I did compare the craft(s) I saw to something that was familiar to me, so I completely understand this. Though I will honestly say that this event is what brought me into the field and cannot think of any information of other encounters that would lead me to "hop on the bandwagon" so to speak in my explanation of the event.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by GeorgeHale]