U.F.O. poll

[manxman]

Perhaps someday we'll obtain sufficient information to confirm the reality of UFOs to the most hardened of skeptics and scientists, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that bet. In the meantime, whatever it is that makes it reasonable to believe UFOs are a reality depends at least in part on how one defines "reasonable".

UFO's are a reality to everyone, even klass, no matter how absurdly he and his ilk dismiss them, with implausible, make the pieces fit, prosaic explanations, instead of just being honest, we dont know what some instances are, however ive never come across one who denies that unidentified flying objects exist.

they have a problem with the leap from unidentified to alien craft, how do you identify with absolute certainty, something that no-one knows for sure exists, and if it doe's exist, what it would look like.

 

[trainedobserver]

This is a kind of paranormal koan that ufologists meditate on deep in the night scrawling through their texts like religious scholars, looking for Talmudic clues to find the code of confirmation.

Personally I give full marks to witnesses like Earley Preston who saw catfish like creatures with humanoid legs stand 5-6 feet tall outside their craft on the highway. The ship behind them covered both sides of the highway. I'm betting that they were not from around these parts, but, of course we don't have confirmation just lots of supposition.

Catfish creatures? They come from Mississippi. That of course has nothing to do with the semantics problem of trying to use the acronym to impart identity (an alien craft) where identity is intentionally absent, i.e. unidentified.

It's fine if someone wants to use the word that way. I don't think it represents the obvious meaning and use of the word and attempts to shoehorn a culturally loaded word (a real word, not an acronym) "alien" into the conversation about what U.F.O.s actually are presents the a large front-end of assumption.

As limited as the poll response is, it does indicate the common understanding among the participants of a forum largely centered on the subject of U.F.O.s to be that the term is used to indicate a flying object which cannot be identified.

 

[trainedobserver]

It seems like we've finally got this cleared up in another thread,...

I didn't see where that happened.

However, all that being said, so far as the public is aware, there is no verifiable and sufficient scientifically valid material evidence that confirms the existence of UFOs, and I think that ufologists need to be prepared to admit that up-front rather than trying to pretend it doesn't matter or stuff it under the rug.

The short answer seems to be none.

The fact that no "Ufologist" has the means to understand the extent to which private and governmental technology has advanced (in this era or any other) seems to me to logically preclude advancing judgements of any kind as to nature and origin where U.F.O. reports are concerned.

Are alien civilizations visiting the earth? Are U.F.O. and Alien Abduction reports evidence of this? I have believed this pretty strongly in the past myself. As the years and information have piled on I've come to realize the language and images surrounding the subject have controlled the perception of it and continue to do so.

Propagating the notion that U.F.O.s are "alien craft" seems to go right along with where popular culture has been steered. Not from here. Not us. Not our civilization. Aliens.

Yeah, I like the idea of flying saucers from alien civilizations too, but I'm not so sure declaring U.F.O.s alien craft is semantically, logically, or scientifically the thing to do.

 

[Randall]

I
didn't see where that happened.

My mistake. I assumed incorrectly you were following things over here: Spirituality, UFOs, and the Heaven's Gate Cult | Page 2 | The Paracast Community Forums

The fact that no "Ufologist" has the means to understand the extent to which private and governmental technology has advanced (in this era or any other) seems to me to logically preclude advancing judgements of any kind as to nature and origin where U.F.O. reports are concerned.

I think almost any intelligent well informed civilian that we can be virtually certain that our own technology cannot be responsible for some of the craft reported, particularly when we look at the classic cases.

Are alien civilizations visiting the earth? Are U.F.O. and Alien Abduction reports evidence of this? I have believed this pretty strongly in the past myself. As the years and information have piled on I've come to realize the language and images surrounding the subject have controlled the perception of it and continue to do so.

Sure. But that's just like everything else. What we have to do is sift through it all to determine what is and isn't reasonable to believe.

Propagating the notion that U.F.O.s are "alien craft" seems to go right along with where popular culture has been steered. Not from here. Not us. Not our civilization. Aliens.

By writing the initials U.F.O. with full stops between each letter, you're referring to the literal phrase unidentified flying object, which is significantly different from the word UFO ( or ufo ) created by the USAF for the purpose of investigating what had been called flying saucers, and deemed by many to be alien craft. So in the context you're using the terms, I think your points are reasonable.

Yeah, I like the idea of flying saucers from alien civilizations too, but I'm not so sure declaring U.F.O.s alien craft is semantically, logically, or scientifically the thing to do.

As indicated above, the way you are using the terms, you are absolutely right. The initials U.F.O. are interpreted literally as the words that the initials represent, while the word UFO refers to alien craft. That doesn't mean every UFO report will turn out to be a UFO, but at least we know we're not talking about vague lights off in the distance that could be anything at all. We're talking about a very specific class of objects.

 

[trainedobserver]

My mistake. I assumed incorrectly you were following things over here: Spirituality, UFOs, and the Heaven's Gate Cult | Page 2 | The Paracast Community Forums

Well, you stated your opinion about it again, which doesn't seem to have changed much. You are welcome to your opinions Randell, they aren't mine.

 

[Randall]

Well, you stated your opinion about it again, which doesn't seem to have changed much. You are welcome to your opinions Randell, they aren't mine.

Why? The examples and reasons I've provided to demonstrate that I hold a supportable position and not a mere opinion. Having discussed this with you at some length, I would say that your position isn't mere opinion either. However because your case doesn't appear to be as well supported as mine, it makes me wonder why you choose not to adapt your position. Is there some flaw in my supporting documentation, logic, or examples? Or is it more personal, or to do with ufology politics? Whatever the case, I would appreciate it if you could elaborate. I'd like to know if I've made an error in my analysis someplace, and/or why you think personality or politics should be a consideration.

 

[manxman]

where's the confusion, without having to read other threads, can you lay it out.

A UFO is unidentified, otherwise it isnt a UFO, also it is a proven Object, otherwise it isnt Flying, it is just Ariel Phenomena, unless ofcourse it is Unidentifiable Ariel Phenomena.

 

[trainedobserver]

I think almost any intelligent well informed civilian that we can be virtually certain that our own technology cannot be responsible for some of the craft reported, particularly when we look at the classic cases.

I understand that is your opinion, I am completely convinced that you are utterly mistaken to assume that "any intelligent well informed civilian" has a ghost of clue to the heights and depths to which technology has been taken by "special interest groups."

By writing the initials U.F.O. with full stops between each letter, you're referring to the literal phrase unidentified flying object, which is significantly different from the word UFO ( or ufo ) created by the USAF for the purpose of investigating what had been called flying saucers, and deemed by many to be alien craft.

Not really. Not according to any dictionary you care to consult. UFO is just another way to write the acronym U.F.O. , they aren't two different "words" in any sense. It is a popular practice to write acronyms without punctuation and to pronounce the acronym as though it were a "word." I can know of no example where two different meaning are attributed in the manner you suggest. It's just not done.

I understand that you think UFO/U.F.O./Flying Saucer's should be designated something called alien craft, so much so you are compelled to write "alien craft" in parentheses when you use the term, but I still wonder, "How many Alien Crafts have you been able to identify?" Why not just say "Alien Craft" and be done with it? Are all the fractured grammatical gymnastics really even necessary?

...and deemed by many to be alien craft.

A popular notion for sure, promoted by UFO literature and the AFOSI alike. I wonder what the chances are ...

 

[manxman]

I wonder what the chances are ...

chances are mathematically impossible the earth has not been visited by e.t. in 4.5 billion years, imo.

but then i believe all our dna is extraterrestrial in origin, i am in the earth being seeded camp, by organism, not et scientists..

earth may even of been seeded by ET's first footsteps so to speak, just their mere fleeting presence on earth would kick start life, in the same sense that neil armstrongs shyte has kick-started life on the moon, still to this day those bags of shyte are teeming with mutating microbes.

 

[trainedobserver]

Why? The examples and reasons I've provided to demonstrate that I hold a supportable position and not a mere opinion. Having discussed this with you at some length, I would say that your position isn't mere opinion either. However because your case doesn't appear to be as well supported as mine, it makes me wonder why you choose not to adapt your position. Is there some flaw in my supporting documentation, logic, or examples? Or is it more personal, or to do with ufology politics? Whatever the case, I would appreciate it if you could elaborate. I'd like to know if I've made an error in my analysis someplace, and/or why you think personality or politics should be a consideration.

It is your opinion that you have a more supportable case, that is about as far as that goes. I created a poll and this thread to allow others to either help you make your case or not.

The flaw in your argument is simply this. The acronym Unidentified Flying Object or U.F.O. sometimes represented as UFO cannot be identified as a craft of alien origin. The logical argument, examples, and documentation are all in those 20 words.

UFO politics? Personal? WTF? No. Good grief man. Look, I have no interest going back and forth with you endlessly about something so basic. Take it or leave it. Read the poll. Think what you want. Go in peace and use UFO to mean whatever you want it to. There are more important things to worry about.

 

[trainedobserver]

I wonder what the chances are ...

chances are mathematically impossible the earth has not been visited by e.t. in 4.5 billion years, imo.

but then i believe all our dna is extraterrestrial in origin, i am in the earth being seeded camp, by organism, not et scientists..

No. What are the chances that popular UFO literature and the counter-intelligence organizations of the United States are going to give us a coherent and factually true picture of what is going on?

The whole E.T. question is totally seperate in my mind and probably Randall's as well since when he says "alien" he is essentially saying "foreign." Popular culture uses the word to mean E.T. of course and thus the source of the confusion.

 

[trainedobserver]

Just to be clear, this is how I think about it:
I do think that some UFO reports seem to describe manufactured vehicles containing occupants that appear to be other than human beings. These accounts do appear to be describing objects and beings that are alien/foreign to/other than vehicles known to the general population. Has anything in such a "report" been positively identified as such? These things described in these reports remain unknown, possibly alien (not in the ET sense), but not decidedly so. I want to put emphasis on the fact that we are talking about UFO reports. Reports are all we have to work with because we have no actual UFOs, alien, foreign, or domestic.

I ask myself, "How many of UFO reports have been verified as actual events?" The recent David B. Caracas UFO comes to mind. A personal account and a newspaper report that verifies it. Certainly what is described there seems to be outside of any terrestrial human technology, but do I know that? No I don't. That report sure does seem to be one of an alien craft from another civilization on some other planet or from some part of this planet unknown to mankind. Who knows? I sure don't. It's remains unidentified to me. I fear having a "belief" about it one way or the other is futile.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

And let's not forget the idea that some, many, or even all 'good' UFO reports may actually be reports of actual objects with actual occupants, but that somehow these objects are not coming from another solar system and physically traversing the galaxy to end up here. More and more I am at least understanding where guys like Keel were coming from in that perhaps all, or a good deal of paranormal events/objects/entities may have the same or a common source.

I of course cannot in any way vouch for anything that may have happened at the Sherman (Skinwalker) Ranch, but using it as an example that demonstrates the variety of phenomena - I find it hard to believe that many distinct and varied weird objects and animals and occurrences all just happened to be in play in a very small geographic area. That say, UFO's, bigfoot, large wolves, 'Predator'-type camouflaged beings, unique animals, light balls....the list is long, are all totally from unique sources. It just makes more sense in an Occam's razor-type way that a larger single force is involved manifesting itself in many ways.

Not for a second am I discounting the possibility of true ET types travelling here, but I agree with John Keel in that in the history of Ufology (the subject, not our friend Randall!) - cases with ultra-weird/high strange aspects have often been discarded or overlooked, or had the high strange elements removed from the telling, when in fact it may be the case that these cases are the ones that should be studied the closest and the high strange elements might be the aspects of those cases that should be looked at closest.

Just food for thought...

 

[Randall]

I understand that is your opinion, I am completely convinced that you are utterly mistaken to assume that "any intelligent well informed civilian" has a ghost of clue to the heights and depths to which technology has been taken by "special interest groups."

Not really. Not according to any dictionary you care to consult. UFO is just another way to write the acronym U.F.O. , they aren't two different "words" in any sense. It is a popular practice to write acronyms without punctuation and to pronounce the acronym as though it were a "word." I can know of no example where two different meaning are attributed in the manner you suggest. It's just not done.

Not all dictionaries go to the same lengths to define words. During my analysis, I consulted about half a dozen regular English dictionaries, including the Oxford English Dictionary, and its rules for how words are defined. Subsequently, I included all those results, plus the process itself in my analysis.

But apart from standard English dictionaries, it is common for specialized subject matter to have their own specific definitions. So standard dictionary examples are only part of the rationale for how the word UFO ( or ufo ) should be defined. The other rationale is that it should be defined by those who specialize in ufology studies who have supportable reasons for how they choose to define it ( both of which apply in this instance ).

The above conditions are also supported in the Wikipedia article on acronyms where it states that, "There is no universal agreement on the precise definition of various names for such abbreviations ... " which means that if we don't agree ( which we don't ) then we must be able to support our individual positions with examples and reasons ( as I have done ). Additionally, as I pointed out previously, full stops ( periods ) can make a difference. According to Wikipedia, some influential style guides, many of them American, still require periods in certain instances.

"For example, The New York Times’ guide recommends following each segment with a period when the letters are pronounced individually, as in K.G.B., but not when pronounced as a word, as in NATO. The logic of this style is that the pronunciation is reflected graphically by the punctuation scheme." ​

How the above applies to the word UFO ( or ufo ) is reflected in its creation as a word by the USAF. It was even given it's own pronunciation ( yoo-foe ), whereas simply saying unidentified flying object equates to U.F.O. which is a simple description of some unidentified object in the sky, as opposed to the very specific class of objects the USAF were investigating."

These subtleties of language may not be important to you, but they still have a bearing on the issue of how the word UFO should be defined. Therefore if you're going to object, then you need to be able to provide a reason as to why these factors should be ignored. This issue has been a thorn in the side of ufology for decades and I currently see no better way of resolving it. If you can make a case for a better way, then as always, I'm open for further discussion. The points your solution needs to take into consideration are:

History ( How did the word originate and what did it refer to )

Official usage ( How the word was used during official investigations )

Specialized Usage ( How the word is used by those who seriously study ufology )

Popular usage ( What do most people think when we say the word UFO )

Clarity ( Does it define the word concisely and in terms that can clear up the confusion that skeptics prey on? )

Standards of defining words used by respectable dictionaries.

Standards of critical thinking ( Do all the reasons contained in the above make sense? Eliminate those that don't. What are we left with? Does it make sense? Refine as needed )
​

In my analysis I've been through all of the above, and trying to maintain that the usage of the word UFO ( or ufo ) and the phrase "unidentified flying object ( U.F.O. )" should all mean the same vague thing in every instance is simply not supportable. The word "UFO" is not simply a generic phrase to be interpreted willy-nilly by whomever for whatever reason they please. It was originally a Top Secret code word created for a specific purpose, and it's official meaning was revised several times into a highly specialized definition by the USAF, the intent of which was to rule out natural and manmade objects from incoming UFO reports. So what's left after that if not something alien? But it doesn't end there either. Nearly everyone instantly associates UFOs with alien craft in everyday language as well. Why is it so hard for you to accept this?

I understand that you think UFO/U.F.O./Flying Saucer's should be designated something called alien craft, so much so you are compelled to write "alien craft" in parentheses when you use the term, but I still wonder, "How many Alien Crafts have you been able to identify?"

Personally, I've only been able to identify one. I think many other people have identified them as well.

Why not just say "Alien Craft" and be done with it? Are all the fractured grammatical gymnastics really even necessary?

That's a good question. I think it's necessary because of the continued confusion that surrounds the word, and because the word is already an accepted part of the English language. Getting its meaning defined properly in all dictionaries and gaining a consensus based on critical thinking as applied to the problem would help to unify the field by providing a more solid foundation from which to begin. So long as we can't even agree on what it is we're supposed to be investigating, how are we to make progress? Why should we be taken seriously? Should we simply agree on a bad definition just for the sake of agreeing? I don't think so. Maybe you think I take this too seriously, in which case I'll take it as a compliment. Alien visitation is a reality. It should be taken seriously when it's being seriously discussed.

 

[manxman]

F.U.C.K. it,


Fine U Can Keep it.

 

[Randall]

UFO's are a reality to everyone, even klass, no matter how absurdly he and his ilk dismiss them, with implausible, make the pieces fit, prosaic explanations, instead of just being honest, we dont know what some instances are, however ive never come across one who denies that unidentified flying objects exist. they have a problem with the leap from unidentified to alien craft, how do you identify with absolute certainty, something that no-one knows for sure exists, and if it doe's exist, what it would look like.

You seem to be incorrectly assuming that because something has a definition it must objectively exist. That is a false assumption. That is not how definitions work. Definitions simply describe what we're talking about. Those things can be hypothetical, theoretical, or fictitious. So in no way does defining the word UFO as "alien craft" automatically mean that anyone is jumping to any conclusion about their factual material existence. It simply defines in less vague terms what it is we're looking for during our investigations and discussions.

I agree completely that we shouldn't "leap from unidentified to alien craft" when we're making actual observations or undertaking an investigation. We need substantial reasons to do that. Therefore we shouldn't say some vague light off in the distance is a UFO when there isn't a substantial reason to do so. Instead we should simply ask what that vague light off in the distance is. For example, "What is that light over there from?" Jumping from that to, "Look a UFO!" is completely unfounded.

I hope this helps clear up your concern.

 

[manxman]

randal, you are a nice fella, your are sincere in your belief, and i am not looking to offend you, but i just dont care, to me a UFO is a mystery, i dont care about definitions.

be lucky.

 

[Randall]

randal, you are a nice fella, your are sincere in your belief, and i am not looking to offend you, but i just dont care, to me a UFO is a mystery, i dont care about definitions.

be lucky.

That's perfectly fair, and thanks for the lucky wish . If I win the lottery this weekend I'll send you a gift! In the meantime same to you, and if you ever want to take ufology more seriously, you know where to come and talk about it in more detail.

 

[manxman]

well actually i am interested in the canadian teachers 3rd space phenomena, at least i think thats what he called it, ive always meant to check it out, wasnt it every 20th frame or so, the same phenomena showed up in ALL nasa footage, anyone could check it out, cant even remember the guys name, just remember oberg wouldnt go near it.

 

[Randall]

well actually i am interested in the canadian teachers 3rd space phenomena, at least i think thats what he called it, ive always meant to check it out, wasnt it every 20th frame or so, the same phenomena showed up in ALL nasa footage, anyone could check it out, cant even remember the guys name, just remember oberg wouldnt go near it.

Actually, that's something new to me. Are there any links?