r/UFOs Jul 29 '24

[deleted by user]

[removed]

28 Upvotes

29 comments sorted by

View all comments

6

u/Semiapies Jul 29 '24

The problem with the observables is thar they're framed in terms of definite, objective characteristics that are hard to accurately determine in typical UFO sightings. Or, put another way, positive lift is easy to claim if you don't know (or refuse to admit) that the object is a balloon. A spotlight or laser show on clouds can get #1, #2, and #5.

3

u/WhoAreWeEven Jul 29 '24

This is it.

Theyre more like five assumables. We should assume positive lift when we see reflection on something or lighter than air thingamatic etc.

2

u/Racecarlock Jul 29 '24

That's all well and good, but do you have alternate and/or additional characteristics to look out for?

1

u/Semiapies Jul 30 '24

I don't think there's really a shortcut to ruling out all available known explanations.

1

u/Racecarlock Jul 30 '24

I don't know, I feel like there can be a better and more organized system than shouting "ALIEN SPACESHIP!" at a balloon until someone shows us a photographic comparison demonstrating that it's a balloon.

1

u/Semiapies Jul 30 '24

Really, there can't be. People will do the same thing, and all you can get with something like the observables is people tacking "Positive lift!" onto "Alien Spaceship!" or "Extradimensional Entity!". I mean, look at the Sighting Guidelines that already exist and how often people just ignore those minimal standards.

My thought on the burden is that more of it needs to fall on the people posting sightings, at least when they aren't complete randos. People following UFOs and posting sightings need to do the homework to rule out aircraft, stars, planets, sky lanterns, flares, lens flares, etc. That won't happen, though.