U.F.O. poll

[trainedobserver]

A simple poll to suss out what most forum readers understand the acronym U.F.O. to mean.

I understand the term to mean that something is seen (an object) moving through the sky (flying) that is unknown and unidentifiable to the witness. U.F.O. reports being accounts of sightings of things moving through the sky that are unidentified by the witnesses. When such reports are analyzed some fall into identifiable categories and out the unidentified one making them identified flying objects and no longer U.F.O.s. To the best of my knowledge no one has been able to identify something in a U.F.O. report as being an alien, non-human, or extraterrestrial manufactured object with any degree of certainty whatsoever.

 

[mike]

The Case for the Extraterrestrial Origin of Flying Saucers

There is no doubt in my mind, after 37 years of study and investigation that the evidence is overwhelming that planet Earth is being visited by intelligently controlled vehicles whose origin is extraterrestrial. There are no acceptable arguments against flying saucer reality, only people who either haven’t studied the relevant data or have a strong will not to believe that Earth is at the bottom of the heap sociologically and technologically in our local galactic neighborhood.

Stanton T. Friedman

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Had a UFO sighting this week and was it a drone with its light on a highly plausible or some other thing. The air was very moist and we just had a thunder storm could of been a ball of lighting. Mind you it moved in all directions and stopped grew larger then slowly became small then proceed to move away the UFO then picked up incredible speed. It reminded me of a robotic eye "something" is examining us folks down here . Also a thought use of thunderstorm as a cover to investigate work of the intelligent "trickster".

 

[trainedobserver]

The Case for the Extraterrestrial Origin of Flying Saucers

Do people see Unidentified Flying Objects that are not of E.T. origin?

 

[mike]

Depends on perspective

An observer may see a craft they cant identify, If that turns out to be an aeroplane at distance then the occupants of the plane can identify the object in question

But the short answer is obviously yes

 

[Randall]

UFO = Alien Craft. It may or may not be flying. It might be landed, or even on the water or submerged. Submerged UFOs are a subclass of UFO called USOs ( Unidentified Submersible Objects ). I made no selection in the poll due to no compatible choice.

 

[trainedobserver]

UFO = Alien Craft. It may or may not be flying. It might be landed, or even on the water or submerged. Submerged UFOs are a subclass of UFO called USOs ( Unidentified Submersible Objects ). I made no selection in the poll due to no compatible choice.

Choice 2 would have fit your definition for the purposes of the poll. In UFO = Alien Craft, you have identified an Unidentified Flying Object as an Alien Craft.

Choice 2 and Choice 3 are contradictions in terms. Something cannot remain unidentified after having said to have been identified.

The question is about the term, not the objects. Either we don't know what something is, meaning it is unidentified, or having read a U.F.O. report we somehow deduce the nature and point of origin of the Unidentified Flying Object reported thereby reclassifying it as either natural, man-made, or extra-terrestrial. I know of no U.F.O. report that has been identified as extraterrestrial or otherwise alien. I do know of some that fall in the "unknown origin" category however.

 

[Randall]

Choice 2 would have fit your definition for the purposes of the poll. In UFO = Alien Craft, you have identified an Unidentified Flying Object as an Alien Craft.

Choice 2 says, "A Flying Object ... " UFOs aren't always seen in flight. So it was close, just not close enough.

Choice 2 and Choice 3 are contradictions in terms. Something cannot remain unidentified after having said to have been identified.

They're contradictions if one applies literal interpretations to the words that were used to form the word UFO, but acronyms aren't necessarily supposed to be interpreted literally. Rather, the words used are supposed to be taken in context of a specific and relevant application, and the new word formed from them takes on it's own specific meaning. So the "contradiction in terms" argument doesn't really apply to the word "UFO" or "ufo", but would apply to a generalized description as in, "That vague light off in the distance is some kind of unidentified flying object."

The question is about the term, not the objects. Either we don't know what something is, meaning it is unidentified, or having read a U.F.O. report we somehow deduce the nature and point of origin of the Unidentified Flying Object reported thereby reclassifying it as either natural, man-made, or extra-terrestrial. I know of no U.F.O. report that has been identified as extraterrestrial or otherwise alien. I do know of some that fall in the "unknown origin" category however.

The term is used as a descriptor for the subject matter. For example not all UFO reports turn out to be UFOs. So the term is used to let investigators know what kind of report it is rather than making any assumptions about what the object described in the report actually is. So it simply differentiates it from other types of reports such as weather reports, missing persons, aircraft status etc.

 

[Jeff Davis]

UFO = Unidentified Flying Object.
USO = Unidentified Submerged Object.

In the flight transition from perceived air space travel to being submerged underwater, the object remains unknown, or unidentified. Behind the veil of scientific critical evaluation, it should be described as perceived, minus witness interpretation, until other adjacent aspects of science reveal the unidentified object's identity, conformational to the scientific process.

A landed object that is suspected to be a flight based vehicle consisting of non-human technology is called just that by the witness.

If we identify the unidentified as being identified, without any real substantiation for that identity, we are just setting ourselves up to fail scientifically.

Known is one thing, faith on the other hand is another. Just because evidence points to something, does not make that something an absolute identity no matter how common sense it might seem. We have all been shown the precise opposite way too many times to conclude otherwise.

These are just my opinions. Everyone's hypothetically creative license carries the same weight, and that is precisely why the unidentified IMO must remain the unidentified, until it has been substantially confirmed as being identified.

 

[trainedobserver]

Randall,
I have to say, you are the only person I have run across who insists that something must be identified before it can be categorized as unidentified. Your stand on this has always perplexed me.

 

[trainedobserver]

They're contradictions if one applies literal interpretations to the words that were used to form the word UFO, but acronyms aren't necessarily supposed to be interpreted literally. Rather, the words used are supposed to be taken in context of a specific and relevant application, and the new word formed from them takes on it's own specific meaning.

Acronyms are abbreviations of words or phrases. The acronym is just shorthand for the meaning of the word or phrase they represent. This is especially true for technical terms. That is supposed to be the beauty of the device of the acronym, you don't have to use the long hand version every time you want to convey the meaning of the root phrase.

Can you provide an example of an acronym that doesn't mean what it says?

 

[Han]

This is slightly complex so I may run into difficulties trying to explain what I mean.

What U.F.O means to me is an unidentified flying object. but it can also mean a lot of other things.

When trying to discern the origin of this "usage" issue the following occurred to me:

If we use "Bigfoot" as an example or analogy, it is important to note that their is currently no "correct" plural. for example some might say (1)"I saw three Bigfoot" (2) "I saw three Bigfoots" (3) "I saw three Bigfeet". Part of the reason is because they (Bigfoot/Bigfeet/Bigfoots) are not accepted to "science" and therefore have no "latin"/scientific name.
However even if they did, the issues surrounding pluralisation would not necessarily go away.
Trend and fashion have a role to play also, if we examine the word for more than one Octopus:
The "modern" usage of the "incorrect" "Octopuses" as opposed to the "correct" "Octopodes" has resulted in a reversal of status, indeed my spell checker is telling me via a little red underline that "Octopodes" is not a word, or that it is spelled incorrectly. But I "know" better.
Why is this relevant? because the words U.F.O and U.F.O's have no "strict" definition but this does not have to be the case, we can, by consistency and context go some way to improving the situation, especially on this forum: We collectively have the ability to redefine or correct the usage of "U.F.O" but first we have to decide exactly what one or they are, which I do not foresee happening any time soon, but by making small adjustments when we write, we can and hopefully will start a trend towards what we decide is the correct usage.
I am thinking of things like using * asterisks and definitions.

Here is an example scenario:

I search the BBC news archive for the words flying & saucer and am pleased when I get 12 "hits"(search results containing Flying and Saucer).

The Article with the most "relevant" text is titled "police called to restaurant", the relevant text reads "one man avoided serious injury by dodging the "flying saucer".
On closer inspection the article is not about a U.F.O* but is about an incident between a customer and a restaurant, and when the relevant sentence is read in its entirety it says: "whilst the waiter was calling the police, the irate customer exploded in a fit of rage, throwing his coffee at the frightened staff, who reacted quickly, "one man avoided serious injury by dodging the "flying saucer" but the cup and its contents spilled harmlessly on the floor.

*U.F.O as in: E.T. vehicle.


It may to some seem a trivial matter, but I however am convinced that language and its use, is the property of those who use it. what I am getting at, is that, it is up to us to remedy the situation regarding many of the words used in the discussion of the "paranormal" field, as we are the ones who "talk" about it.

I have observed and assisted many people who are learning or have learned English as a second language, and one consistent thing that they request, is to be "corrected" when they make a mistake. Failure to address such issues can result in habits that are hard to break in the long term. I have the same request when it comes to this "field" because I have not done enough research and or reading to be fluent in "paranormal" speak. So I really like this thread!

It could be as simple as making up new words, and introducing them to a wider audience, or it could be the long drawn out process of redefinition and trend, but it is imperative that we at least come to some consensus, for the good of the "expedition"**.

I think that maybe a "paracast" dictionary thread would be a good idea?.


**Expedition as in:

noun

• 1a journey undertaken by a group of people with a particular purpose, especially that of exploration, research, or war:an expedition to the jungles of the Orinoco
• the people involved in an expedition:many of the expedition have passed rigorous courses

 

[Ezechiel]

I'm like Stanton Friedman, I don't care/give a damn about UFO's. I care about 'flying saucers'.... landed ones with life forms stepping out of them or those that exhibit 'in your face' maneuvers that can't be reproduced by current humans. All the cases that force you to consider intelligence and technologies possibly originating from outside our planet.

The shape isn't really important as long as distinct structure and behavior can be observed and documented.
UFO Sightings Investigator Nick Pope Recalls Rendlesham Forest Incident: 'It's A Better Case Than Roswell' | KpopStarz

 

[trainedobserver]

Han,

I have to disagree. I think Unidentified Flying Object (U.F.O.) has a very clear meaning. It is an unidentified object flying through the air. In short, an unknown thing moving through the sky.

There are two terms used to signify unknown, unidentifiable, and otherwise inexplicable phenomena seen in the sky. Unidentified Flying Object and Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. The second being another attempt at using a term that assumes less about the unidentified object.

The term UFO or UAP covers a wide range of unidentified visual and sensor phenomena. Alien Craft and ET Craft are presumptive terms suggesting that the point of origin or what the point of origin is not, is known.

 

[trainedobserver]

I'm like Stanton Friedman, I don't care/give a damn about UFO's. I care about 'flying saucers'.... landed ones with life forms stepping out of them or those that exhibit 'in your face' maneuvers that can't be reproduced by current humans. All the cases that force you to consider intelligence and technologies possibly originating from outside our planet.

Exactly. Evidence of technology using civilizations outside of our own is what drew me and probably every other UFO buff out there to the subject in the first place. Has anything been positively identified as such though? I don't think so.

 

[Ezechiel]

Exactly. Evidence of technology using civilizations outside of our own is what drew me and probably every other UFO buff out there to the subject in the first place. Has anything been positively identified as such though? I don't think so.

You have to trust the kids

 

[trainedobserver]

You have to trust the kids

Well, you do realize that the objects and entities described by them have not been identified as extraterrestrial in origin. That something "appears" to be alien, extraterrestrial, or what have you doesn't make it so. This line of discussion really doesn't have anything to do with the meaning of the term Unidentified Flying Objects however.

 

[stonehart]

I prefer the term UAP personally, but that could be seen as just splitting hairs.

UFO = Unidentified flying object and to jump to any preconceived conclusions on this matter is plainly self deceiving.

 

[Han]

Han,

I have to disagree. I think Unidentified Flying Object (U.F.O.) has a very clear meaning. It is an unidentified object flying through the air. In short, an unknown thing moving through the sky.

There are two terms used to signify unknown, unidentifiable, and otherwise inexplicable phenomena seen in the sky. Unidentified Flying Object and Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. The second being another attempt at using a term that assumes less about the unidentified object.

The term UFO or UAP covers a wide range of unidentified visual and sensor phenomena. Alien Craft and ET Craft are presumptive terms suggesting that the point of origin or what the point of origin is not, is known.

I don't think it is so clear, I checked the dictionary:

UFO: noun (plural UFOs)
a mysterious object seen in the sky for which it is claimed no orthodox scientific explanation can be found, often supposed to be a vehicle carrying extraterrestrials.*



((source))UFO: definition of UFO in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

 

[Han]

Well this is interesting I just for some unknown reason checked the same dictionary but the U.S English version instead, and to my suprise the word "UFO" has a different entry:

UFO: noun (plural UFOs)

• a mysterious object seen in the sky for which, it is claimed, no orthodox scientific explanation can be found.*

N.B. the omission of the rest of the definition ("often supposed to be a vehicle carrying extraterrestrials".)



((source))UFO: definition of UFO in Oxford dictionary (American English)