UAP - The Most Active Community Discussing UAP/UFOs

1238 readers

55 users here now

A community for civil discourse related to Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena. Share your sightings, experiences, news, and investigations. Everyone is welcome here, from believers to skeptics and everything in between.

New to Lemmy?

See the Getting Started Guide

Want Disclosure?

Declassify UAP offers a tool that automatically finds your representatives and sends them a prewritten message.

Community Spotlight

Useful Links

Community Rules

Follow the Code of Conduct.
Posts must be on-topic.
No duplicate posts.
No commercial activity.
No memes.
Titles must accurately represent the content of the submission.
Link posts must include a submission statement (comment on your own post).
Common Question posts must include a link to the previous question thread if previously asked.
Low effort, toxic comments regarding public figures may be removed.
Off-topic political discussion may be removed at moderator discretion.

Other Communities

[email protected]

If you're interested in moderating or have any suggestions for the community, feel free to contact SignullGone or HM05_Me.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

We know what ‘foo fighters’ that buzzed Second World War pilots really were, say scientists (www.telegraph.co.uk)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Archive Link: https://archive.is/2024.02.03-131857/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/02/harvard-reveals-what-ww2-foo-fighter-ufos-were/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think it's very interesting that they specify that they appear attracted to nuclear sites. The Minute Men ICBM incidents at Minot and Malmstrom AFBs immediately came to my mind. The soldiers described them as orange-red pulsating glowing lights, which is similar to the description from this article.

I can see this as a possible alternative explanation there, but certainly not for other cases, such as the Falcon Lake incident.

Regardless, I'm glad to see relevant scientific research. That's exactly what we need for explaining the UAP phenomena. But it's hard to have valid scientific research on the subject when there is such a stigma...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

Great examples. Definitely shows the range of objects sighted and complexity of reviewing the topic. Even if these scientists are onto something, they'd have a lot of documenting and research ahead of them. Hopefully we're breaking enough of the stigma to encourage more research on the subject. It'll take a lot of research to understand the various types of sightings.