It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should we start saying "AFOS" instead of UFO

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I think if we start using "AFOS" that would give more credit to those people that actually have encounter such living matter from outer spacer.

AFOS stands for Aliens From Outer Space.

I really think then if someone actually has real prof, it would give assurance that the humans on Earth are not alone. As I mention a few times, UFO's are just that "unidentified flying objects" has nothing to do with Aliens From Outer Space.
There has never been any sighting of extraterrestrial crafts from the International Space Station in all these years.




posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 08:23 PM
link   
If people could prove what they are, they would not be unidentified. They would be identified.



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: musicismagic

I like UKSITS
unknown @#$% in the sky



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 08:32 PM
link   
The rather unattractive "UAP" acronym has its own problems attaining common usage.

A third version won't help!



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: musicismagic

I thought "extraterrestrial" was the politically correct term. Maybe EFOS



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueJacket

What the Fscks? WTFs



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: musicismagic

"There has never been any sighting of extraterrestrial crafts from the International Space Station in all these years. "

Yeah, like they would be allowed to report such things as if it was no big deal. Nobody knows if they have actually seen anything up there except for the astronauts/cosmonauts themselves, and the people who debrief them.



posted on Feb, 17 2019 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Ummmmmm sorry, no. Only like UFO.



posted on Feb, 17 2019 @ 02:33 AM
link   
a reply to: musicismagic
The term UFO already is widely used for claimed observations of extraterrestrial spacecraft as the wikipedia article says:

UFO

An unidentified flying object (UFO) is an object observed in the sky that is not readily identified. Most UFOs are later identified as conventional objects or phenomena. The term is widely used for claimed observations of extraterrestrial spacecraft.


It's kind of like what that guy with the hair, Tsoukalos, on "Ancient Aliens" would say, applies to UFOs too, like this:

"I saw a UFO. I'm not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens." Maybe UFO shouldn't imply aliens, but used in that way, of course it does.




posted on Feb, 17 2019 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: musicismagic

I think any direct reference to an origin should only be used when we do have clear evidence of that origin, so for anyone to claim that they had seen an Alien From Outer Space they should provide evidence that they saw something, that this something was alien to our planet and from outer space. If they can prove it, no problems, but seeing that most people cannot even prove that they saw something, inventing new names is just a waste of time.



posted on Feb, 17 2019 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Contrary to urban legend.

Aliens from space haven't been proven to exist.

Don't get me wrong. Space is a big place. I have no doubt somewhere there's probably lots.

But here?

UFO is a more accurate descriptor.



posted on Feb, 17 2019 @ 07:55 AM
link   
UFO=UNIDENTIFIED flying object
USO=UNIDENTIFIED submerged object

the point is that the U[i] directly refers to the fact that the object is of unknown origin. now just as soon as you can positively identify where such an object comes from, which would also mean you do in fact know what it is. then of course name like UFO/USO are no longer appropriate. since said objects would then be NKOWN objects. and as such a craft that we know for a fact, from proof, is run by aliens from another planet, then yes a term like AFOS which stands for Aliens From Outer Space might be appropriate. although i would think that we would instead use their planet name/species name to describe their craft (gotta be "politically correct you knw)



posted on Feb, 17 2019 @ 11:38 AM
link   
UFO's are still unknown, thus the acronym. AFOS is inaccurate, since we don't know they are aliens. They're still unidentified.

It's certainly possible they're aliens, but could be interdimensional, from the government, a hidden race from here on Earth, plasma life forms etc etc.



posted on Feb, 17 2019 @ 12:37 PM
link   
"aeiou+" beings?

Alien/extraterrestrial/inter-dimensional/out of body/under the earth or sea beings.

And then a "+" so as not to exclude any being that might still pop up (or refuse to).

Not sure about the craft, but the beings should have a division between "extra-terrestrials" and "aliens".

Extraterrestrials could simply mean beings like us who live outside earth, whereas "aliens" implies completely different lifeforms.



posted on Feb, 17 2019 @ 01:03 PM
link   
IF there is a possibility that they are time travelers from our past or future, then any reference to them being ALIEN would be a bias.

I prefer "AAA" Anonymous Airborne Artifacts (or Anomalies). Kind of covers all possibilities.


edit on 17-2-2019 by charlyv because: spelling , where caught



posted on Feb, 17 2019 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: halfoldman
Extraterrestrials could simply mean beings like us who live outside earth, whereas "aliens" implies completely different lifeforms.

Why?



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Contrary to urban legend.

Aliens from space haven't been proven to exist.



I truly hate it when someone makes an uninformed statement like this...Makes me think that they have unrealistic expectations of the evidence available, or they do not understand the science involved.
Evidence


It is actually rather simple...Extraterrestrials have in fact visited, interacted with Earth and have abducted individual Humans.

However, referring to ET as an "alien" is incorrect. Off-worlders, while technically "alien" should not be lumped into the same class as we would Mexicans, or Canadians, French, German, etc. You should observe a bit more respect for the individuals involved...



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: james1947
You should observe a bit more respect for the individuals involved...

What individuals, the Aliens? If yes, why?



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: james1947
I truly hate it when someone makes an uninformed statement like this...Makes me think that they have unrealistic expectations of the evidence available, or they do not understand the science involved.
Evidence
Carl Sagan certainly understood the science involved and he said it was plausible that aliens have visited the earth in the past, though he never saw evidence of this.

He did see what you suggest is "evidence" and explains why it's not scientifically viable, so perhaps it's you who neither understands the science, nor the expression "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".






However, referring to ET as an "alien" is incorrect. Off-worlders, while technically "alien" should not be lumped into the same class as we would Mexicans, or Canadians, French, German, etc. You should observe a bit more respect for the individuals involved...
I don't know if off-worlders deserve more or less respect than aliens from other countries, since I've never met any off-worlders.

edit on 2019218 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Carl Sagan certainly understood the science involved and he said it was plausible that aliens have visited the earth in the past, though he never saw evidence of this.

He did see what you suggest is "evidence" and explains why it's not scientifically viable, so perhaps it's you who neither understands the science, nor the expression "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".



Well, I only wanted to voice my objection to the statement that there is "no evidence", or "no proof", since neither is true!

However, the Mighty Carl Sagan was using information that is not obsolete when he made his statements, but has become obsolete over time. Further, he obviously (to anyone who has actually done the work) didn't do any of the work to determine IF Betty's map was valid or not. He may not have had the tools to do that level of work in his time.

And, again, he, and all the others, have based their remarks on old/obsolete data. My work is based on modern data, and perhaps just as important, modern understanding of Astronomy and Astrophysics...something Carl Sagan didn't have benefit of. SO, perhaps before you go quoting something/somebody that is proven wrong, you might want to actually check out the new stuff.

The very great advantage I have in this is access to modern data, both stellar data, and planetary data, and the ability to produce software that consumes that data and produces "views" of that data that most (including Astronomers) never have access to...the advantage of being a Software Engineer...

Then there is the FACT that Betty's "map" predicts the existence and relative positions of some 8 stars that were not known in 1961 (nor for much of Carl's life)...



edit on 18-2-2019 by james1947 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join