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.

 

UFOs vs. PFOs

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2008 @ 01:09 AM
link   
There seems to be a gap in identifying unidentified flying objects. for example, if there is a weather balloon that's really really high up, and you're looking at it, and you've never seen a weather balloon before, you might think, "gosh, that thing is strange. there's a possibility that that could be an alien spacecraft." Well, in theory, yes. But it could also be a million other things.

Contrast that with someone who sees something much closer, something that looks like a ship, a controlled object. It has an exterior that looks like it was created by an intelligent species. The combination of these factors makes this object much more likely to be an alien spacecraft than the other one. Yet they're all lumped into the "UFO" category, making it confusing when trying to distinguish between the serious and non-serious cases.

I know they had "levels" back in the blue book days, but I propose creating a more obvious distinction. For example, a "PFO" (this is just an example. the "P" stands for probable, which doesn't really make sense). If someone posted a "I saw a UFO today" and someone else posted a "I saw a PFO today". We'd all be much more interested in the PFO, as that indicates a ship of some sort. It would also make future cases easier to sort through. UFO is so general. This area of study has grown too much to not create more distinctions.




posted on May, 4 2008 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Basically what your talking about is using Occam's razor which basically states one should not increase the amount beyond what is necessary to explain a phenomenon. However I think the term 'PFO' isn't really necessary.

The term UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object. If I saw a weather balloon in the upper atmosphere and I didn't know what it was then thats exactly what it is, an unidentified flying object. UFO does not mean an alien spaceship, it means what it stands for. If you saw something close up and you could tell that it was a spaceship I think its more logical to say; 'Today I saw a spaceship' or something similar.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   
true, but since you've never seen it before, you can't be 100% sure what it is. Thus the need for the next level up of UFOs. Also, saying you saw a spaceship could very well get you laughed out of the building. A more scientific distinction may get you more respect.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   
But since UFO's are unidentified, no one can put a stamp on them. For that matter, no one knows what UFO's are - we don't even know if they are solid or not, if they have an "engine" or not. So, formally, saying that you saw a spacecraft is also "wrong" in that sence.

So, in short, a UFO is unidentified until the final conclusion is reached - i.e. that it is a balloon, airplane, etc. or something unknown. What "should" be used are designations like descriptions - cigar-shaped object, saucer-shaped object and so on (even though the word "object" is also controversial if you will, I mean, are hallucinations "objects"?).



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join