Reply to thread

Again you're missing the point. There is a difference between being certain that there are reports that are meant for reporting specific types of things, and being certain that the content of such reports is factual with respect to what they say happened. I'm not making any claim that we're certain about the facts with respect to what a report says happened, only that we can be certain about what we mean by the subject matter that forms the context of the report. So if a person reports seeing what they believe could be an alien craft, it's the same as saying they are reporting what they believe could have been a UFO. What it was that they actually saw might have been something else, and a follow-up investigation might determine that what they saw was probably something else, but it doesn't change the nature of the report. It just means that investigators would then conclude that the object was probably not a UFO.

Again, the word "alien" does not necessitate ET. If a few humans create a craft that is alien to the rest of the world, then for all intent and purpose it is still an alien craft in a way that is similar to calling an actual human being from another country an alien. So the word "alien" is still fine in this situation. It is far more adaptable that using ET, because hypothetically, UFOs might not be ET. So again, we seem to be in agreement on the spirit of your point, and when the context and usage is understood, it works to convey the subject matter very well. The problem is when people don't understand that virtually anything floating about in the sky that isn't identified is the same as a UFO. It's not. It never has been. It's incorrect usage, and it leads to all kinds of confusion and bad reports, most of which in the days of Project Blue Book, would have ended up in the trash basket or the insufficient information pile.