UFO's Fact or Fiction ?

[Randall]

I have tried to remember to use UAP (Unknown Aerial Phenomena) in place of UFO because UAP doesn't have the same gut reaction effect as UFO, but relays the same meaning (technically speaking).
As far as fact or fiction.......people see things in the sky they can't positively identify all the time, hence UAP.
ET's, interdimensional travelers, time travelers, sky beasties, earth lights, man made super science crafts, undiscovered CRYPTO-terrestrial crafts, future ghosts, demons, angels, hallucinations, hoaxs, cultural urban-rural legends......take your pick of the explanations.
Just remember theres no proof to put one over the other.

When we are using the word UFO we are talking about alien craft or the subject matter of UFO reports. On the other hand, UAPs could be natural or man-made but from the witnesses point of view remain unexplained. It seems like a minor differrence, but it is an important distinction.

 

[exo_doc]

So you're saying mechanical looking craft-like objects should be refered to as UFO's?
And balls of light, or smokey looking rings, or non-mechanical looking things should be called UAP's?

 

[Randall]

So you're saying mechanical looking craft-like objects should be refered to as UFO's?
And balls of light, or smokey looking rings, or non-mechanical looking things should be called UAP's?

Not exactly. For details visit the USI site here.

For a quicker clarification: Where we draw the distinction is in the intended usage. For example if we start a conversation about non-fictional alien craft visiting Earth, we are talking about UFOs. If we are talking about mysterious flying phenomena that include the possibility of them being natural or man-made, we are talking about UAPs.

Example: When a jet fighter pilot sees a disk shaped object in daylight, goes into pursuit and closes on it to within a few hundred yards only to have it streak off at a rate beyond any Earthly technology, we are not talking about a UAP, we are talking about a UFO.

Balls of light were classed as UFOs by J. Allen Hynek under the designation "Nocturnal Lights". But are they craft? Depending on context this can get blurry, but in its widest sense a craft is simply some sort of conveyance and it could be made of anything ( metallic plastic, energy, biological or some combination of all ).

But what if some of the objects in UFO reports are in and of themselves living entities, are they still craft? As machines like aircraft become intelligent would we stop calling them aircraft? For example, is an intelligent robot drone not still an aircraft? How intelligent and self aware does it have to be before it is no longer an aircraft? It seems to me that it would always be some sort of craft, even if it evolved the capability of spaceflight or underwater travel.

 

[exo_doc]

Ufology I like your post, and you raise some good points.

Yet I find I must disagree with using UFO because of the cultural stigma attached to the acronym.
"UFO? You mean little green men and hillbilly rednecks getting drunk and flying around with our Space Brothers here to save us?"........ See what I mean? People immediately jump to conclusions, and turn off their critical thinking ability---hell, they just shut down their brains , period.

And the honest to God fact for sure is....we really have no clear evidence one way or another if they are alien craft or natural phenomena or what the hell they really are. WE wouldn't be having this discussion if we knew...

Hence, UAP covers all the bases, and does not illicit the social gut reaction that UFO does. I don't know. Perhaps I pick too many knits.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

But it is undeniable there are structured craft flying in our skies that were not made by us!
(I think)

 

[Randall]

Ufology I like your post, and you raise some good points.

Yet I find I must disagree with using UFO because of the cultural stigma attached to the acronym.
"UFO? You mean little green men and hillbilly rednecks getting drunk and flying around with our Space Brothers here to save us?"........ See what I mean? People immediately jump to conclusions, and turn off their critical thinking ability---hell, they just shut down their brains , period.

And the honest to God fact for sure is....we really have no clear evidence one way or another if they are alien craft or natural phenomena or what the hell they really are. WE wouldn't be having this discussion if we knew...

Hence, UAP covers all the bases, and does not illicit the social gut reaction that UFO does. I don't know. Perhaps I pick too many knits.

Thanks for your post exo. By all means let's pick the knits. It is subtle but important to nail these issues down. So here is how I came to my present view. The stigma that you identify is a byproduct of minds that will view the topic that way no matter what term is used. So I asked myself this question, "Should we stop using a term that is already firmly embedded in our culture just because an element of the population likes to poke fun at it?" The sensible answer is simply "No." If people refuse to consider the topic with an open mind, then they are the ones with the problem. And that gives rise to the second question: Do we kowtow to the people who have the problem because we are afraid we might offend them? Again, certainly not! If we advocate critical thinking then it is important to be brave and if necessary face off with those who would resort to behaving poorly, or else the stigma will only persist further. One cannot rid the playground of bullies by not going to the playground. I will however grant that under certain circumstances, perhaps "Unidentified Areal Phenomena" might be used to ease some of the more reserved types into a conversation they might otherwise shy away from.

Also the two phrases UAP and UFO have different meanings. NARCAP chose UAP partially to sidestep the stigma, but they also define it differently to include phenomena that are natural or manmade. Those aren't what ufologists are mainly interested in. Ufologists are primarily interested in UFOs, and from the word's inception, it was meant to designate objects of extraordinary character, popularly believed to be alien craft. Official definitions also went on to make it clear that natural or manmade objects were not to be reported as UFOs. So clearly, we are not talking about some vague object that could be almost anything when we are talking about UFOs. However that is not to say that the word UAP should not be used. USI ( the group I'm with ) endorses NARCAP's use of the word UAP when it is appropriate. There is a healthy rationale there and NARCAP is an excellent project.

Lastly, I do not agree that we have no "clear evidence". What we ( the public ) don't have is material and scientifically verifiable evidence. But that isn't even relevant to the issue of usage. The purpose of the word UFO is to designate the topic of conversation, and topics of conversation are not required to be scientifically proven to exist first before they can be discussed. Lastly, many people are very interested in the subject and a good conversationalist who is well informed on UFOs can show how it advances critical thinking and fosters an interest in many areas of science. It would be interesting to put us both in a room full of people and kick off a discussion like this just to see if it would attract any attention. I'll bring my aluminum foil covered pyramid shaped hat and we'll see who gets taken more seriously.

 

[Randall]

But it is undeniable there are structured craft flying in our skies that were not made by us!
(I think)

Well I suppose anything is deniable. The question is, how reasonable is it to be in denial about something ( anything ). In the case of UFOs, any well informed and unbiased person would ( or at least should ) agree that outright denial would not be reasonable.

 

[exo_doc]

Thanks for your post exo. By all means let's pick the knits. It is subtle but important to nail these issues down. So here is how I came to my present view. The stigma that you identify is a byproduct of minds that will view the topic that way no matter what term is used. So I asked myself this question, "Should we stop using a term that is already firmly embedded in our culture just because an element of the population likes to poke fun at it?" The sensible answer is simply "No." If people refuse to consider the topic with an open mind, then they are the ones with the problem. And that gives rise to the second question: Do we kowtow to the people who have the problem because we are afraid we might offend them? Again, certainly not! If we advocate critical thinking then it is important to be brave and if necessary face off with those who would resort to behaving poorly, or else the stigma will only persist further. One cannot rid the playground of bullies by not going to the playground. I will however grant that under certain circumstances, perhaps "Unidentified Areal Phenomena" might be used to ease some of the more reserved types into a conversation they might otherwise shy away from.

Also the two phrases UAP and UFO have different meanings. NARCAP chose UAP partially to sidestep the stigma, but they also define it differently to include phenomena that are natural or manmade. Those aren't what ufologists are mainly interested in. Ufologists are primarily interested in UFOs, and from the word's inception, it was meant to designate objects of extraordinary character, popularly believed to be alien craft. Official definitions also went on to make it clear that natural or manmade objects were not to be reported as UFOs. So clearly, we are not talking about some vague object that could be almost anything when we are talking about UFOs. However that is not to say that the word UAP should not be used. USI ( the group I'm with ) endorses NARCAP's use of the word UAP when it is appropriate. There is a healthy rationale there and NARCAP is an excellent project.

Lastly, I do not agree that we have no "clear evidence". What we ( the public ) don't have is material and scientifically verifiable evidence. But that isn't even relevant to the issue of usage. The purpose of the word UFO is to designate the topic of conversation, and topics of conversation are not required to be scientifically proven to exist first before they can be discussed. Lastly, many people are very interested in the subject and a good conversationalist who is well informed on UFOs can show how it advances critical thinking and fosters an interest in many areas of science. It would be interesting to put us both in a room full of people and kick off a discussion like this just to see if it would attract any attention. I'll bring my aluminum foil covered pyramid shaped hat and we'll see who gets taken more seriously.

Excellent arguments. I did not mean to imply that the unenlightened be kowtowed (sp?) too. I'm trying to think of ways to get the average person interested in the subject of ufology without immediately turning them away.
I do understand the subtle yet important distinctions between UAP and UFO, and I agree with your reasoning. There is something still bothering me I'm not quite able to solidify in my mind. Maybe a good nights sleep will help.
I try to remain open minded about what UFO's and UAP's are, and I do lean generally in the ET hypothesis direction for UFO's. But I don't know that 100%. Objects displaying a structured metallic looking appearance could very well be some sort of natural phenomena we know zero about. Granted that's extreme(and I really don't buy that), but it's still something to consider.

 

[Randall]

Excellent arguments. I did not mean to imply that the unenlightened be kowtowed (sp?) too. I'm trying to think of ways to get the average person interested in the subject of ufology without immediately turning them away.
I do understand the subtle yet important distinctions between UAP and UFO, and I agree with your reasoning. There is something still bothering me I'm not quite able to solidify in my mind. Maybe a good nights sleep will help.
I try to remain open minded about what UFO's and UAP's are, and I do lean generally in the ET hypothesis direction for UFO's. But I don't know that 100%. Objects displaying a structured metallic looking appearance could very well be some sort of natural phenomena we know zero about. Granted that's extreme(and I really don't buy that), but it's still something to consider.

Hey there exo ...

Most average people are pretty open minded about the subject. It's the ones who have been negatively influenced who need their confidence restored. Regarding what is bothering you, it's probably the same thing that was bothering me when I first set out to solve this problem. For me, the idea that we might find some suitable replacement term that everyone would be happy with is was very appealing, and for several years I tried to come up with something that would work. I persisted because having to accept that what we already have is as good as it gets was unsettling. Why? Because we naturally don't like to compromise and the word was born out of compromise and has continued to be a source of confusion both in and outside the ufology community. Ultimately however I realized that by sticking with the facts, the problem solves itself. The word UFO ubiquitously conjures up imagery of alien craft and has matured to become recognized in our language for that specific purpose.

So ... so what if people make fun of it? People make fun of everything, ... politics, law, race, religion, comedy, sexual orientation ... whatever. That just validates the point even more. You know a word has succeeded in becoming part of language when a comedian can get up in front of a crowd and make jokes about it and everyone laughs because they know exactly what he or she is referring to.

Lastly, just to comment on the ETH, the word "alien" does not necessitate the ETH. The ETH is only one of several possibilities. All we know with certainty is that UFOs are alien to us. But exactly what they are and where they come from is another story.

 

[exo_doc]

Good points.
BTW, I'll bring my aluminum foil hat too, with the copper wire frame pyramid on top of it. I can just see us emptying a restaurant just by showing up!