Actually the word UFO is technically correct as an acronym and a word. Indeed the definition of "acronym" is, "a word formed from the initials or other parts of several words" ( Encarta ). It is also a noun ( and nouns are words ). The word pronounciation is "yoo-foe". This is not only the way it was meant to be pronounced by its creator, but was also popularized by the classic television series UFO.
The acronym UFO was coined in 1952 by Captain Edward J. Ruppelt:
There is no indication that Ruppelt preferred either the modern North American “yoo-foe” or the rest of the English speaking world’s “U.F.O.” If from North America you will pronounce it as a word, if from the rest of the English speaking world, you will pronounce the individual letters of the acronym.
It is also a misnomer that the word has the same literal interpretation of meaning as the individual words that makeup the word origin. The word origin is not the same as the definition.
We know Ruppelt probably meant by his term “interplanetary spaceships”:
”The report has been difficult to write because it involves something that doesn't officially exist. It is well known that ever since the first flying saucer was reported in June 1947 the Air Force has officially said that there is no proof that such a thing as an interplanetary spaceship exists. But what is not well known is that this conclusion is far from being unanimous among the military and their scientific advisers because of the one word, proof; so the UFO investigations continue. (Forword)
…and
” I wouldn't class myself as a "believer," exactly, because I've seen too many UFO reports that first appeared to be unexplainable fall to pieces when they were thoroughly investigated. But every time I begin to get skeptical I think of the other reports, the many reports made by experienced pilots and radar operators, scientists, and other people who know what they're looking at. These reports were thoroughly investigated and they are still unknowns.
(…)
Maybe the final proven answer will be that all of the UFO's that have been reported are merely misidentified known objects. Or maybe the many pilots, radar specialists, generals, industrialists, scientists, and the man on the street who have told me, "I wouldn't have believed it either if I hadn't seen it myself," knew what they were talking about. Maybe the earth is being visited by interplanetary spaceships.
Only time will tell.” (p.243)
This is abundantly apparent when we go back and examine the development of official USAF defintions, the most detailed being AFR 200-2 Feb. 05 1958.
Air Force regulation No. 200-2 States:
”
Unidentified Flying Objects – Any airborne object which, by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to known aircraft or missiles, or which does not correspond to definitions in a and b above.” (
http://www.nicap.org/directives/afr200-2_020558.pdf pp.1-2)
However, in 1949 - well before Ruppelt - Dr Allen J. Hynek had defined “flying saucer” as:
” "any aerial phenomenon or sighting that remains unexplained to the viewer at least long enough for him to write a report about it. (…) Each flying saucer, so defined, has associated with it a probable lifetime. It wanders in the field of public inspection like an electron in a field of ions, until ' captured1 by an explanation which puts an end to its existence as a 'flying saucer'"
” (Hynek, J. A. (1953) Unusual Aerial Phenomena. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 43 (4), April. pp 311-314)
Then – after Ruppelt – in 1955 Battelle Study stated (in terms of “unidentified aerial objects”):
”
…the term "flying saucers" shall be used hereafter in this report to mean a novel, airborne phenomenon, a manifestation that is not a part of or readily explainable by the fund of scientific knowledge known to be possessed by the Free World. This would include such items as natural phenomena that are not yet completely understood, psychological phenomena, or intruder aircraft of a type that may be possessed by some source in large enough numbers so that more than one independent mission may have been flown and reported. Thus, these phenomena are of the type which should have been observed and reported more than once.” (
http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf p.1)
What we can note from the above is that Ruppelt merely coined the term UFO to replace “flying saucers” and that he was inclined to believe that UFOs were “interplanetary spaceships. This was not exactly a
definition of the term, just what he was inclined to believe UFOs represented.
For a definition of “flying saucers” (or UFOs or UAOs, etc) we can see that the early definitions divorced the
belief about what they might
represent to concentrate merely on the
descriptive definition - and thus to couch it in terms of an unidentified object that is not explicable in terms of current knowledge. There is no grand conspiracy or deliberate misrepresentation in any of that – it is a practical scientific expediency.
It is a misrepresentation pure and simple to portray the word UFO as simply the literal interpretation of "unidendified flying object"
I believe therefore you are incorrect in your statement here. We can see that the earliest of
definitions spoke in terms of unidentified objects that are inexplicable in terms of current knowledge – and current definitions carry that through (see below).
carlitos provides a list of UFO definitions for “snicker” value – and as he is a committed UFO debunker we can understand this mocking approach from him, but of course to accurately obtain the correct information we do need to access rather more scholarly resources. The most well researched and resourced English language dictionaries define UFO as follows:
Oxford
(
http://oxforddictionaries.com/)
”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.”
Cambridge
(
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/)
”abbreviation for unidentified flying object: an object seen in the sky which is thought to be a spacecraft from another planet”
Merriam-Webster
(
http://www.merriam-webster.com/)
”an unidentified flying object; especially : flying saucer”
Macmillan
(
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/)
”an unidentified flying object: a strange object that flies through the sky that no one can recognize. Some people think UFOs are a sign of life on other planets. ”
Collins
(
http://www.collinslanguage.com/Default.aspx)
”unidentified flying object”
So as we can see, modern definitions include
both the object as inexplicable in terms of current knowledge (a la early definitions) as well as making reference to popular beliefs concerning extraterrestrials (a la Ruppelt). I really don’t see what your real objection to modern (and historical AF) definitions is ufology…
Belief has nothing to do with establishing the definition. I thought I had made this clear already.
Clearly the modern definitions account for both scientific practicality and belief. People may
believe that UFOs represent many different things (from ETs to misidentified mundane objects and anything in between) and clearly you
believe (a la Ruppelt) that UFOs represent ET. However, as I pointed out, others believe differently. What gives you the right to define UFOs according to your personal opinion and yet reject other’s definitions
as misrepresentative which are based on
their personal opinions? No, there must be a neutral ground in which the definition does not contain a particular
belief – and UFO as Unidentified Flying Object simply does that.
However, if you believe UFOs to be of ET origin, my question to you is: Can you support your believe with evidence? AND, lest you feel I am picking on you merely for your beliefs, I would ask the very same question of someone who believed UFOs to be misidentified mundane objects.
Are you sure you aren't the impostor Ramjet we had on from the JREF.
LOL.
A definition is a descriptor to convey what we mean during discussion or study, nothing more. We don't have to believe unicorns or vampires exist to have definitions that give them unique descriptive meanings.
That is comparing apples and oranges. Would you accept a definition of UFOs that began with the term “mythological”?
Actually ... "strictly speaking" the above is completely wrong as the official USAF definitions, CUFOS definition, most dictionaries and the overwhelming common usage indicate. UFOs are understood in all these cases to be extraordinary. What you are doing here is confusing point 2 of the definition with the first part. Point 2 gives the word UFO context with respect to UFO reports.
UFOs are understood to be unidentified because they have no plausible mundane explanation according to the fund of current knowledge. That is what clearly comes through from USAF etc definitions. You may then speculate or hypothesise what those unidentified objects may represent (ET, misidentified mundane objects, Jungian unconscious, time travellers, even Morlocks from the centre of the earth…) but you cannot then force those beliefs onto a definition of UFOs that is required to be used by all. There is no difference between doing that and someone else requiring that we use “time travellers” in the definition. Surely you can see that?
What you need to do is provide us with the
evidence to support your
beliefs about what UFOs might represent (and what characteristics of those UFOs we can use to distinguish your ET craft from other UFOs). Those are the things I have been asking you for and you seem to be ignoring my requests in that regard.
My responses to the rest are the same as above. Belief and proof have nothing to do with establishing a definition. UFOs are extraordinary objects believed to be of alien origin, usually extraterrestrial, and there are two primary contexts of usage. The definition shifts from its primary meaning ( an alien craft ) when talking about the objects themselves, to references to objects in UFO reports that have yet to be investigated ( secondary point in the proposed definition ).
You want the “primary meaning” to be
ET craft. Others want the primary meaning to be “misidentified mundane objects”. I cannot accept any definition that has either as a “primary meaning”. A UFO is
unidentified. If you want it to be
identified (as an ET craft) then you need to show us the
evidence that will allow that identification. Just the same as if someone else wanted a mundane identification, they would need to show the evidence that allows
that identification. Of course, as soon as it is
identified (as an ET craft or a mundane object)
then it is no longer a UFO.
So ufology, please, show us the evidence and/or logical argument to support your beliefs. This thread is supposed to be about the
evidence and the
research. Please can we get back to that?
---------- Post added at 12:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:17 AM ----------
My aim in this thread is to supply evidence and research to support my contention that UFOs defy plausible mundane explanation. In the interests supporting that contention I will therefore list some cases that I believe provide the evidence. I will begin with four early cases - and if there is interest - I will progressively list some more modern cases. I would be interested in what people’s opinions are on the following cases.
The Battle of Los Angeles (25 Feb 1942)
(
http://www.nicap.org/losangeldir.htm)
(
http://www.ufocasebook.com/battleoflosangeles.html)
(
http://brumac.8k.com/BATTLEOFLA/BOLA1.html)
(
http://www.rense.com/general27/battle.htm)
The Chiles-Whitted Case (24 Jul 1948 )
(
http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case116.htm)
The Rogue River Case (24 May 1949)
(
http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)
(
http://www.nicap.org/docs/rogue490524docs3.htm)
White Sands: Twinkle, Twinkle Little Craft (April-May 1950)
(
http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)
(
http://www.nicap.org/ncp/ncp-brumac.htm)
(
http://www.project1947.com/gfb/twinklereport.htm)
unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w
ontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> In the context of this thread, then a working definition of UFO is essential and you are right in insisting we come up with one – and one that represents what we mean when we say “UFO”, not what some pseudo-sceptical, debunker driven rationalisation says it should mean – to them and not to Ufologists.
