In defence of space aliens

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!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And what do we find in this ''thread'', Magical realist telling lies...

But MR does...

And that's what we find .. UFOs are craft.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

All the cool kids are saying UAP 'Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon'.

Maybe that will help MR with his terminology conundrum.

 

'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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

"40 ft long tic tac" is a description not an identity. Noone asserts that they were actually 40 ft long tic tacs.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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..."

 

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!

 

Glad we can all finally agree that UFO's ARE a phenomenon.

 

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.

 

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