Originally posted by Majorion
reply to post by Xtraeme
For me, it simply means Unidentified Flying Object.
But unidentified to who? If I'm a debunker and I like to promote my status as an amateur astronomer and I claim you saw Venus. Does that mean what
you saw is no longer an Unidentified Flying Object?
I hope you said no to that
Clearly it's unidentified to you the observer (Dr. Hartman's definition
). It's identified to me the debunker because I've made it my
life's goal to give an identification, no matter how preposterous, to every sighting (DE-UFOP
). So my point here is you have to understand the
persons UFOP to determine the trustworthiness of the evaluator and therefore the truth-index of their conclusion.
Dr. J. Allen Hynek for the first several years of his career as a scientific adviser to Blue Book had a DE/PSY/MIL/AP-UFOP. The fact that he changed
his mind to a NM-UFOP after investigating a number of cases is what makes him appear to be a reasonably objective observer. This isn't to say Hynek
is more likely correct than me the debunker. It just means he's more willing to let the evidence take him wherever it leads him (implying a higher
). Which is hugely different from me the debunker trying to fit the evidence into my belief that everything must
As humans we all know people have bias.
This is why people flock to Hynek. We get the warm-fuzzies because the man spent many years of his life coming up with explanations to rationalize
away UFO sightings (they don't call him Mr. Swamp Gas for nothing
). Clearly if such a person can change his mind, whatever the evidence is that
influenced him must be of the highest caliber, right? (again high truth-index
This is what I like to call social calculus. If a person leans in the direction of ETH (AV-UFOP), but for the most part is objective and doesn't
reach outside what the evidence suggests, they're still subconsciously labeled a believer (and therefore get a lower truth-index rating
James E. McDonald is a prime example.
This brings me to a very important point. People not only give themselves a UFOP rating, others, based off reading another persons research, hearing
them talk, etc, come to their own conclusion about the persons UFOP classification. Take Phillip Klass, Klass considered himself a "scientific
skeptic" (AP/PSY/MIL-UFOP) but in reality anyone who sits down and reads his work realizes he's a debunker (DE-UFOP).
Jacques Vallee wrote the foreword for Ann Druffel's book 'Firestorm' and I think he very neatly sums all of this up,
The lesson Jim McDonald taught us is an important one, and it should not be forgotten: Science is made up of mysteries and of challenges that
require more than good work.
The notion of academic purity is nothing but a charming myth.(1)
So after going through certain accepted channels (UFO Hunters, MUFON, AIAA, etc) a UFO can attain a status as a "confirmed" UFO. The
perceived-respectability (or truth-index) of the organization or person directly relates to the standing of the "confirmed" UFO rating.
Flying saucer or flying disk is another related term, but has a different meaning than UFO. Because it describes something very specific..
metallic and disk shaped looking craft.
I agree people are more likely to assume that "flying saucer" means alien craft, but this is still a bad assumption. Saucer is simply a shape. If I
said I saw a "flying teardrop" does that tell you I saw a craft? Does it tell you it's metallic? Of course not. It just tells you a shape.
There are a number of UFO reports that state things to the affect of, "I saw a flying saucer shaped object that was glowing like a light-bulb."
Using just that description the person might have actually seen some sort of atmospheric phenomena.
We need to do away with these old notions of what shape and 'unidentified' imply. We need to be more explicit about our meaning.
On a more conspiratorial aspect, I wonder what the governments secretly use as a codeword.. IFO (Identified Flying Object) perhaps?.. or like
Steven Greer says; ARV(Alien Reproduction Vehicle).. somehow, I think he probably came up with that himself
During Vietnam the military supposedly referred to UFOs as helicopters
Vietnamese didn't have any
. I wouldn't be surprised if the US military of today used a similar cover system. Perhaps they refer to them as
Canadian scramjets / ramjets?
[edit on 20-3-2009 by Xtraeme]