question for the community, as someone who’s seen a number of UFOs and as an avid researcher and thinker on the subject: the five observables are a handy tool but in my opinion shouldn’t be a necessary condition for assessing a potential ufo. curious to know what you all think. why? the phenomenon is, as far as we understand & presume, some form of non-human intelligence, and is as many have said, more intelligent than us. that would mean it would know about the five observables, & could easily adjust its behavior to not meet any of the criteria & thus blend into otherwise prosaic skies. accelerating instantly would be a dead giveaway, & subtlety seems to be a calling card of whatever is going on under the surface. real UFOs could deliberately avoid showcasing any of the five observables when being filmed in order to maintain plausible deniability. its very difficult to study something that’s aware it’s being studied, especially if it’s incomprehensibly more advanced than us. the UFOs i’ve seen did exhibit anti-gravitic properties, but they didn’t zip around, accelerate instantaneously, cloak themselves, travel into different mediums. mostly they appeared when nobody else was around, quietly, strangely, moving slowly across the sky. i’m concerned that if we limit ourselves to specific behaviors outlined in the five observables, we might miss a lot of important data that lives in the middle. am i off base here? curious to know what y’all think, massive respect for each & every one of you. quick example of adjusting behavior intelligently: if Beatriz Villarroel is right about the pre-Sputnik orbiting reflective objects (as the data suggests she is), where are the objects now? it’s quite conceivable that they moved closer to or further away from the earth, cloaked, or otherwise adjusted to our data collection methodologies so the phenomenon could continue existing right on the liminal sweet spot it seems to prefer. see you on the mothership! submitted by /u/midnightballoon [link] [comments]