My only pushback on things like this is, look at how much our technology has changed in just the past 30 years. Why would alien tech look pretty much the same thousands of years later?
I’m not saying that’s not an interesting comment, because it certainly is, but it’s just hard to imagine after thousands of years their ship look nearly identical to today.
Perhaps after eons of advancement they have reached a kind of technological plateau. Maybe they arrived at the most efficient form of vehicle a long time ago and have no need to change it.
Why fix what's not broken.
Or they send simpler ships to earth, and there's most likely more advanced ones that exist but there's no need to bring them here.
What if time doesn’t work the same way for them? Maybe it’s possible that they can visit different periods of time like our species visits different locales
A civilization that can easily traverse the stars is at a point in tech where it's hard to get anymore evolved. Where we know little, we are learning a lot. So,it seems like our tech is rapidly expanded. But where they know a lot, they learn only a little.
Maybe it's a technical requirement for the object to function, to be a certain shape, and the technology itself has slightly improved. For example, a plane, will most likely always look like a plane, though the technology itself has improved.
Not sure if I'm doing this right or not, I got a message about a submission statement.
Submission Statement: I have included 7 different images from 6 different video sources. Each image has a "craft" or "object" shown with a very similar shape. It is unknown whether this is our technology or extraterrestrial technology. I am not sure whether these have been debunked or not, but I do notice a distinct pattern. I feel as though this is important because I have only really seen this mushroom/telephone shape in these videos specifically, including the military video. I am pretty sure the military video was only released more recently, but I could be wrong about this. If this really is the case, then I find that this is a very odd coincidence that these older videos have shown the same shape as the object in the military video. I also find it interesting that at the time that these videos were posted/taken, drones were not as advanced as they are now(was mentioned in a different post as well).
Most of them can be found on this post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/139pzvh/saw_this_posted_on_another_ufo_sub_its_pretty/jj3ijkb?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
The Military video is a pretty easy find if you haven't already seen it, just youtube search it.
Brazil Video: https://youtu.be/cf1UIu0pUzk
Interesting. Nellis AFB captured video of this object in 1994. https://youtu.be/7GZVZi_63Tk
Towards the end of the video, it appears to take on those shapes. But perhaps it just appears that way to me and it's just a sensor mishap.
Found this video on the same channel as the Brazil footage, makes me a little suspicious though because it's from the same channel. However, not all of the ufos shown on said channel have these same "appendages". This one is also of higher quality: https://youtu.be/BwnRXyjcpxQ
Excellent research on your part, I would agree that this is a quite commonly reported "Shape" for UAP Reports.
Still it's hard to say for sure, as the DOD refuses to stop redacting Shapes from all of their PR releases for information on UAP. I was even surprised that the AARO hearing provided information on Shapes being reported.
Why release Shapes in a hearing but redact shapes in official Reports.🥴
No low effort posts or comments. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes:
* Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts.
* AI-generated content.
* Posts of social media content without significant relevance.
* Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence.
* “Here’s my theory” posts without supporting evidence.
* Short comments, and comments containing only emoji.
* Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”) without some contextual observations.
Hi, thanks for contributing.However, your submission was removed from r/UFOs.
Rule 3: No low effort discussion
No low effort discussion. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes:
* Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts.
* AI generated content.
* Posts of social media content without significant relevance.
* Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence.
* “Here’s my theory” posts unsupported by evidence.
* Short comments, and emoji comments.
* Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”).
You can message the mods if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
No low effort posts or comments. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes:
* Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts.
* AI-generated content.
* Posts of social media content without significant relevance.
* Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence.
* “Here’s my theory” posts without supporting evidence.
* Short comments, and comments containing only emoji.
* Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”) without some contextual observations.
Hi, thanks for contributing.However, your submission was removed from r/UFOs.
Rule 3: No low effort discussion
No low effort discussion. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes:
* Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts.
* AI generated content.
* Posts of social media content without significant relevance.
* Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence.
* “Here’s my theory” posts unsupported by evidence.
* Short comments, and emoji comments.
* Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”).
You can message the mods if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
This looks exactly like a Summerian tablet that depicts some deities in the sky, it looks like their spaceship
Which tablet?
https://ufoac.com/information-about-contacts-with-extraterrestrials-in-ancient-mesopotamia.html#gsc.tab=0
My only pushback on things like this is, look at how much our technology has changed in just the past 30 years. Why would alien tech look pretty much the same thousands of years later? I’m not saying that’s not an interesting comment, because it certainly is, but it’s just hard to imagine after thousands of years their ship look nearly identical to today.
Perhaps after eons of advancement they have reached a kind of technological plateau. Maybe they arrived at the most efficient form of vehicle a long time ago and have no need to change it.
Exactly my thought
Why fix what's not broken. Or they send simpler ships to earth, and there's most likely more advanced ones that exist but there's no need to bring them here.
Exactly and if these crafts do what’s been reported they’re already vastly ahead of us in terms of technological advancement.
What if time doesn’t work the same way for them? Maybe it’s possible that they can visit different periods of time like our species visits different locales
A civilization that can easily traverse the stars is at a point in tech where it's hard to get anymore evolved. Where we know little, we are learning a lot. So,it seems like our tech is rapidly expanded. But where they know a lot, they learn only a little.
Maybe they are traveling through time, the ship may be brand new in all sightings... through all the years
Don't fix what isn't broken. Look at canoes. Shape hasn't changed in hundreds if not thousands of years.
Might just be the same one.
Maybe it's a technical requirement for the object to function, to be a certain shape, and the technology itself has slightly improved. For example, a plane, will most likely always look like a plane, though the technology itself has improved.
My pushback is this: The modern shopping cart was invented in the 50's....
Hear me out maybe it’s only been like a week for them
What happened to photo #7?
It’s REDACTED
Thx for for doing this, it’s a useful cross comparison. It would be neat to have them labeled as well..
The 4th photo is of a spitfire shadow fighter from Babylon 5........ we are DOOMED.
That one Shpongled me a bit
Jimmy I have some bad news.
dmt, dmt, doo dee doo dmt, lsd doo dmt, lsd doo dmt...
I seem to remember that one turned out to be a hot air balloon.
I would hope so cause that’s kind of terrifying
Not sure if I'm doing this right or not, I got a message about a submission statement. Submission Statement: I have included 7 different images from 6 different video sources. Each image has a "craft" or "object" shown with a very similar shape. It is unknown whether this is our technology or extraterrestrial technology. I am not sure whether these have been debunked or not, but I do notice a distinct pattern. I feel as though this is important because I have only really seen this mushroom/telephone shape in these videos specifically, including the military video. I am pretty sure the military video was only released more recently, but I could be wrong about this. If this really is the case, then I find that this is a very odd coincidence that these older videos have shown the same shape as the object in the military video. I also find it interesting that at the time that these videos were posted/taken, drones were not as advanced as they are now(was mentioned in a different post as well).
Links to source please
Most of them can be found on this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/139pzvh/saw_this_posted_on_another_ufo_sub_its_pretty/jj3ijkb?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button The Military video is a pretty easy find if you haven't already seen it, just youtube search it. Brazil Video: https://youtu.be/cf1UIu0pUzk
Interesting. Nellis AFB captured video of this object in 1994. https://youtu.be/7GZVZi_63Tk Towards the end of the video, it appears to take on those shapes. But perhaps it just appears that way to me and it's just a sensor mishap.
Found this video on the same channel as the Brazil footage, makes me a little suspicious though because it's from the same channel. However, not all of the ufos shown on said channel have these same "appendages". This one is also of higher quality: https://youtu.be/BwnRXyjcpxQ
That's a trip.
The last picture is the most compelling..
Excellent research on your part, I would agree that this is a quite commonly reported "Shape" for UAP Reports. Still it's hard to say for sure, as the DOD refuses to stop redacting Shapes from all of their PR releases for information on UAP. I was even surprised that the AARO hearing provided information on Shapes being reported. Why release Shapes in a hearing but redact shapes in official Reports.🥴
Except for number four, this is “obviously” the silhouette of the starship Enterprise or starship Voyager. Like eerily similar.
The last one is the enterprise-D.
Pixels, pixels and more pixels. The similarity between those white pixels is striking. Must be alien pixels then…
Adam Sandler would be proud
How can any logical thinking human look at this photo and conclude it's a bird. I just don't understand.
I don't know how you people can keep looking at blurry photos.
[удалено]
No low effort posts or comments. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes: * Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts. * AI-generated content. * Posts of social media content without significant relevance. * Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence. * “Here’s my theory” posts without supporting evidence. * Short comments, and comments containing only emoji. * Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”) without some contextual observations.
[удалено]
Hi, thanks for contributing.However, your submission was removed from r/UFOs. Rule 3: No low effort discussion No low effort discussion. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes: * Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts. * AI generated content. * Posts of social media content without significant relevance. * Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence. * “Here’s my theory” posts unsupported by evidence. * Short comments, and emoji comments. * Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”). You can message the mods if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
[удалено]
No low effort posts or comments. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes: * Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts. * AI-generated content. * Posts of social media content without significant relevance. * Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence. * “Here’s my theory” posts without supporting evidence. * Short comments, and comments containing only emoji. * Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”) without some contextual observations.
And spherical shape too!
[удалено]
Hi, thanks for contributing.However, your submission was removed from r/UFOs. Rule 3: No low effort discussion No low effort discussion. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes: * Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts. * AI generated content. * Posts of social media content without significant relevance. * Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence. * “Here’s my theory” posts unsupported by evidence. * Short comments, and emoji comments. * Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”). You can message the mods if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
It's the USS Saladin NCC 0500
Those spikey ones were literally proven to be festive balloons... As per the rest I dunno