In defence of space aliens

Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by Magical Realist, Oct 10, 2017.

  1. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,703
    Hello Mr someone else

    Soooo I shouldn't take your word for it

    Insert here something about shoot and self and foot

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    foghorn likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. foghorn Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    631
    And what do we find in this ''thread'', Magical realist telling lies...
    But MR does...
    And that's what we find .. UFOs are craft.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2021
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,782
    And so? Even assuming these reports are reliable (which they aren't), how do we get from there to "spacecraft create a field which protects them against any gravity forces". The most you can actually justify is that "spacecraft are able to hover, somehow".
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,782
    A UFO is only a UFO until it is identified as something, which could be swamp gas, the planet Venus, or an alien spaceship.

    The fact that something is a UFO only tells us that the something is as-yet unidentified.

    It is surprising that, after all this time, you're still unaware of what the term "UFO" stands for.

    The problem with that definition is that when an eyewitness phones you to report seeing a mysterious light in the sky, you can't say they've reported a UFO, and you probably won't be able to say that for days or months or years after the report. That's because, according to this definition, an extensive investigation must be undertaken to rule out any "suggestion" of a logical, conventional explanation for the sighting - an investigation that requires "close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible". And if one is not possible, for example due to lack of sufficient evidence (as is typically the case with many sightings), then we're not allowed to call that sighting a "UFO".

    How are we to refer to the vast majority of cases in this "non-UFO" category, then? Did J. Allen Hynek have any advice on that?
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2021
  8. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,182
    A little bit of common sense helps. Hynek overlooked inserting 'nonmundane' ahead of 'UFO', but it's obviously implied in context. A legalese attack based on that oversight is silly.
     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,408
    All the cool kids are saying UAP 'Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon'.

    Maybe that will help MR with his terminology conundrum.
     
  10. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,182
    'All the cool kids' includes the US military investigators and at that beginning way back in the early 1950s:
    https://ufoissue.com/uap-means-ufo-a-terminological-history/

    It pays to research a bit before shooting off in an attempt to denigrate.
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,408
    Yes, that is my point. It is a viable alternative term.

    The fact that you assumed I was trying to be denigrating reflects poorly on your bad faith, not mine.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2021
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,408
    Let's be clear here. We were all perfectly happy using the term 'UFO'.

    It is Magical Realist who is attempting to steer the terminology used in this discussion, not James R or anyone else. If you want to call anyone silly for employing legalese, direct it at Magical Realist.
     
  13. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    Nope. If it is identified as something, then it is no longer a UFO but an IFO. which is an identified flying object. There is no sense in calling it UFO if it is identified. The term UFO in fact refers to any of the disc-shaped objects, oblong shaped objects, or 40 ft long tic tacs that have been witnessed by thousands haunting the atmosphere of our planet since recorded time began.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2021
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,408

    Not true at all. Many of the disc-shaped and oblong objects you broadly refer to have been identified - some as hoaxes, some as lies, some as mistaken objects such as blurred birds in photos, etc.

    OK, so by your logic, these are IFOs, since they're identified as 40ft long tic tacs.
     
  15. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    "40 ft long tic tac" is a description not an identity. Noone asserts that they were actually 40 ft long tic tacs.
     
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,408
    While we're at it, so is "UFO". It's a label for something we haven't identified yet.



    That's part of the problem with your attempts to lay down an authoritative definition of the term here in this discussion. It's too fluid a concept - and a loaded term.

    Following the military's lead, I'm going to suggest we use the term UAP to refer to a phenomena itself, regardless of the status of any possible explanation. The term simply refers to the incident itself, without any implication as to explanation or lack thereof.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2021
  17. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    I didn't create the term. The USAF did.

    "The term "UFO" (or "UFOB") was coined in 1953 by the United States Air Force (USAF) to serve as a catch-all for all such reports. In its initial definition, the USAF stated that a "UFOB" was "any airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object". Accordingly, the term was initially restricted to that fraction of cases which remained unidentified after investigation, as the USAF was interested in potential national security reasons and "technical aspects" (see Air Force Regulation 200-2).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object
     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,408
    Right. Except it's not a catch all.

    As the definition itself connotes, many (in fact almost all) have a plausible explanation, and thus drop out of the military's UFO definition into some larger bucket of things that may have explanations or simply get explained.

    Only a few stay in the bucket as the military rules them as not explainable even after study. The rerst are neither UFOS (by the military definition) nor IFOs.

    We should agree on a term for this larger bucket.

    Here, we are often talking about the superset of these phenomena - i.e. whether or not the military has made their own ruling in them.

    So, if you are intent on using the military definition of UFO, rather than the popular one, then we'll need a term for that superset.

    I suggest that, for Magical Realist's benefit, those wishing to refer to the larger set of unidentified aerial phenomena - whether or not the military has made a ruling and/or thinks they can explain it or not - use the term UAP. That seems reasonable.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2021
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,408
    And as long as we're using Wiki for our facts - from that very same article:

    "Studies have established that the majority of UFO observations are misidentified conventional objects or natural phenomena—most commonly aircraft, balloons including sky lanterns, satellites, and astronomical objects such as meteors, bright stars and planets. A small percentage are hoaxes."

    and

    "...various studies have concluded that the phenomenon does not represent a threat to national security, nor does it contain anything worthy of scientific pursuit..."
     
  20. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,703
    So we can call this set of phenomenon

    OVSHCTTPDNRATTNSNDICAWOSP's

    Just rolls off the tongue

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    Glad we can all finally agree that UFO's ARE a phenomenon.
     
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,408
    That's not a phenomenon, that's many unrelated-unless-they're-related phenomena.

    To suggest UFOs are a phenomena is equivalent to suggesting that Yeti, the Loch Ness Monster and Unicorns are a phenomena. Nope, that's a human-defined association, not a manifest association.



    Nobody here has denied that people see things in the sky that never end up getting identified and remain a mystery.

    Surely, you didn't fight for 233 pages of posts just to get to that.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2021
  23. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    But you just quoted the ufo Wiki article presumeably in support of your view and even bolded the words "the phenomenon":

     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2021

Share This Page