We’re all noticing it, it’s hardly new, but – of late it’s fair to categorise a good deal of the footage posted as UFO sightings consisting of very little other than a far distant point of light, not even moving itself – often zoomed in with a shakey camera – basically doing nothing and termed “Weird” or “inexplicable” when it clearly isn’t… Should we introduce a minimum criteria that, whatever captured, it has to be demonstrating at least 1 of the 5 observables or just carry on, business as usual? For those unfamiliar, a quick recap of what the 5 Observables consist of: 1: anti-gravity (no discernable propulsion, no exhaust trails, no flight or flight control surfaces, no rotors or the word Goodyear printed on the side ) 2: sudden & instantaneous acceleration (from ZERO to several hundred MPH in less than a second, sharp, angular course changes discernable at high speed, zig-zagging, etc) 3: hypersonic-speed evident without sound signatures (Mach 4+) 4: stealth (visual and/or electronic) 5: evidence of trans-medium capability (can effortlessly travel through multiple mediums, including water as well as air) We’re not looking for all, just 1 of the 5 – something to indicate whatever actually…
Read More…
Should UFO footage submitted to this sub, at a minimum, consist of an object demonstrating at least 1 of the 5 Observables or do we stick with any old shit doing very little while someone tries to make out it’s inexplicably weird (even though it clearly isn’t)…?