A taxonomy of UAP imagery

[Edward Current]

One of the frustrating things about discussing UFOs/UAPs is the wide variety of forms these things appear as, and the resulting wide variety of explanations for images of them. I thought it would be fun to put together a taxonomy. At the very least, it may give beginner investigators a road map to start from.

Did I miss anything? (I'll add Aliens From Outer Space when we have evidence for that.)

 

[JMartJr]

I'd just say:

E: Kite
1: With lights
or
1: Illuminated

Since there are kites flown at night with glow-in-the-dark tape, reflective tape, fire/pyrotechnics (rarely), or just flown in the illumination of a spotlight, handheld flashlight/torch or laser -- night kites are now largely but not totally LED illuminated.

I might also add to the kite line a reference like "Kite -- stable, active or aerobatic flight" just to alert folks to the fact that there are kites that move around in the sky quite a bit as well as those that are stable. But that may be a level of detail further than what you are intending... ^_^

 

[Giddierone]

Shouldn't 1. be IFOs instead of UAP?
Also, Ad Planes, blimps, (and helicopters).

Also Richard F. Haines and John F. Schuessler have done a number of studies trying to categorise all their different reported forms.

 

[Edward Current]

Shouldn't 1. be IFOs instead of UAP?

If they're on this list, I suppose they should all be labelled as IFOs!

 

[flarkey]

A few More

• A
  • Helicopter
  • Airliner with Landing/Takeoff lights illuminated heading towards observer
• B: Particularly Venus & Jupiter & Sirius
• C: Artificial Satellites
  • Tumbling satellites
  • Rocket Launches
  • Rocket Re-entry
  • Starlink Trains

 

[NorCal Dave]

Also Richard F. Haines and John F. Schuessler have done a number of studies trying to categorise all their different reported forms

There's a whole book I've mention before, with different versions, where some authors combed through MUFON and other reporting forums and tried to catalog everything UFO. Broken down by states:



Like Scheussler before them, it seems they just ends up with a mishmash of data that may or may not correlate to anything.

I'm wondering if something more in reverse would be useful? Something like a flow chart that starts with what someone saw and works through possible solutions. Here's a crude quick idea:

 

[JMartJr]

Shouldn't 1. be IFOs instead of UAP?

If they're on this list, I suppose they should all be labelled as IFOs!

Perhaps: Objects often reported as UAP/UFOs?

 

[Scaramanga]

It would appear the entire UFO taxonomy has these days been reduced to 'Orb'.

I kinda miss the old Adamski UFOs....they at least had a bit of style.

 

[Giddierone]

There's no need to reinvent the wheel here. This work has been done before. For example Jenny Randles was big into categorising IFOs in order to identify the real UFOs.

Source:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090816065056/http://www.nufonews.co.uk/UFO_Study_P1_V151.pdf

 

[Ann K]

@Giddierone
Nice charts. They need to be updated with things like Starlink flaring. But perhaps they should start with the observer and method of sighting. Seen from Inside or outside? Real-time observation or something caught on an automatic security camera and seen later (or seen later on a photo or video of another subject)? Seen by a neutral viewer or someone who has had other sightings or has a book to write? Number of witnesses, and do their accounts agree? And I don't see the word "hoax" on her charts.

 

[JMartJr]

For example Jenny Randles was big into categorising IFOs in order to identify the real UFOs.

That would seem to me to be in error... behind intervening trees/buildings, yeah that can happen. If it goes beyond the horizon I'd say it is unlikely to be a kite -- there ARE kites big enough to be seen a long way off, but that seems to be pushing it.

 

[Chundered]

I. K . Unidentified

 

[Edward Current]

There's no need to reinvent the wheel here. This work has been done before. For example Jenny Randles was big into categorising IFOs in order to identify the real UFOs.

That's not a taxonomy (although it's useful). Has anyone done a taxonomy? And yeah. The flowchart needs an update.

Perhaps: Objects often reported as UAP/UFOs?

I changed it to "UAP/IAP" (input: UAP; output: IAP)

 

[Giddierone]

That's not a taxonomy (although it's useful). Has anyone done a taxonomy? And yeah. The flowchart needs an update.


I changed it to "UAP/IAP" (input: UAP; output: IAP)

Googles Taxonomy of UAP > https://newspaceeconomy.ca/2024/09/29/taxonomies-of-uap-ufo-a-comprehensive-exploration/

 

[Edward Current]

Googles Taxonomy of UAP > https://newspaceeconomy.ca/2024/09/29/taxonomies-of-uap-ufo-a-comprehensive-exploration/

Also not a taxonomy; it's three lists. I mean like a biological taxonomy, and oriented toward the explanations rather than merely witnesses' descriptions, which isn't very helpful (whereas the flowchart is helpful, though messy).

Just because other people have classified UFOs doesn't mean there might not be other, perhaps better, ways of doing it.

 

[NorCal Dave]

There's a whole book I've mention before, with different versions, where some authors combed through MUFON and other reporting forums and tried to catalog everything UFO. Broken down by states:

Apparently, I forgot to include the book mentioned:

There used to be an online version if one wants to save $40, but it seems it's for patrons only or something now:

https://archive.org/details/ufosightingsdesk0000cost/mode/2up

 

[Giddierone]

I mean like a biological taxonomy, and oriented toward the explanations

But they're unexplained by definition, so I'm not sure what you're trying to do here.
The linked article gives a taxonomy and separates UAP in to categories. But you could do something similar i.e. (as many authors have done before).

Categorisation:
By Shape/Appearance
By Behavior/Movement
By Context/Encounter Type
By Hypothesized Origin (Speculative)

the book mentioned:

Yes, we've talked about this before. There's an archive.org link to it here: #82

 

[Edward Current]

But they're unexplained by definition, so I'm not sure what you're trying to do here.

I thought of this while trying to prepare something for a person who wants to learn more about the modern state of ufology, but doesn't know much about it beyond the proverbial flying saucers and little green men. There's a zoo of mundane things that can lead to UFO sightings, and I wanted a neat and tidy way to arrange them.

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

The bill Congress has been considering and passing over for the last few years uses the term "Temporarily Non-Attributed Object" for one class of observations.

https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/uap_amendment.pdf

(19) Temporarily Non-Attributed Objects.--
(A) In General.-- The term "temporarily non-attributed objects" means the class of objects that temporarily resist prosaic attribution by the initial observer as a result of environmental or system limitations associated with the observation process that nevertheless ultimately have an accepted human origin or known physical cause. Although some unidentified anomalous phenomena may at first be interpreted as temporarily non-attributed objects, they are not temporarily non-attributed objects, and the two categories are mutually exclusive.
(B) Inclusion.-- The term "temporarily non-attributed objects" includes--
(i) natural celestial, meteorological, and undersea weather phenomena;
(ii) mundane human-made airborne objects, clutter, and marine debris;
(iii) Federal, State, and local government, commercial industry, academic, and private sector aerospace platforms;
(iv) Federal, State, and local government, commercial industry, academic, and private sector ocean-surface and undersea vehicles; and
(v) known foreign systems.

I think this term Temporarily Non-Attributed Objects (TNAO) is useful, but the definition is logically problematic. Specifically this sentence: "Although some unidentified anomalous phenomena may at first be interpreted as temporarily non-attributed objects, they are not temporarily non-attributed objects, and the two categories are mutually exclusive"

I think in most instances when an object is categorized as a TNAO, it will be the case that it was initially interpreted by the initial viewer and other early secondhand individuals as being unidentified (or 'non-attributed'), not temporarily non-attributed. Is it not fundamentally impossible to know whether something you do not know, will remain not-known, or whether you will later know additional information about it?

If I hear a loud engine noise outside of my home and I walk to a window to see if I can see what it is, while I am walking, the noise is unattributed, and I cannot know whether it is only temporarily unattributed, as I cannot know for sure that when I arrive at the window I will be able to see what is making the noise. Maybe the thing making the noise is off to the side at an angle I can't see from the window.

From the definition in the UAPDA above, it seems like they are trying to make it so everything unknown is classified as "temporarily unknown", so they can re-define UAP as being things which have been investigated to the point where the reason it is not attributed to a known object is that there is no such known object that it possibly could be attributed to. They want people to interpret everything called UAP as being evidence for truly anomalous, super-human, non-human technology. This is clearly not the case though, as "UAP reports" frequently do get resolved and attributed to known objects. It's my understanding that the UAPDA was drafted by (or in close collaboration with) activists in the alien disclosure community, which may help explain why this was written in this way, seemingly to redefine UAP as being known-to-be-unknown rather than a broader class of unknown-but-maybe-known-later things. The fact that things referred to as UAP are frequently identified/attributed upon further investigation is very inconvenient to those activists.

 

[Ann K]

The fact that things referred to as UAP are frequently identified/attributed upon further investigation is very inconvenient to those activists.

Not so much, I think. Old cases, sometimes very old ones, keep getting dredged up as "the most convincing evidence" (oops, sorry, that should be in red letters, boldface, with lots of capital letters and exclamation points), and subsequent debunking is simply ignored. They are still touting Roswell, for goodness sake, and "alien autopsies".

 

[Gary C]

That's not a taxonomy (although it's useful). Has anyone done a taxonomy? And yeah. The flowchart needs an update.

I changed it to "UAP/IAP" (input: UAP; output: IAP)

I rather like the idea of mapping from non-uniform raw data, "sightings", to factual statements we can reasonably make about those sightings, to possible explanations that correspond to allowable factual statements.

Would it be useful to add an element for the form of data acquisition? e.g.
- Visual Unaided - No instruments
- Visual - Binoculars/Telescope
- Video - Hand Held
- Video - Mounted/stabilized
- Video - Thermal

and so forth?

 

[Edward Current]

I rather like the idea of mapping from non-uniform raw data, "sightings", to factual statements we can reasonably make about those sightings, to possible explanations that correspond to allowable factual statements.

Would it be useful to add an element for the form of data acquisition? e.g.
- Visual Unaided - No instruments
- Visual - Binoculars/Telescope
- Video - Hand Held
- Video - Mounted/stabilized
- Video - Thermal

and so forth?

Possibly that can be a separate taxonomy for different purposes. I really like the idea of the flow charts as a guide to solving sightings, but they are a bit over-exhaustive (the Sun as a large and very bright disc, really?) and not visually appealing or elegant. Perhaps we can come up with something clean-looking that combines the flow charts and the lists by classification type.