The word UFO.

When people ask if UFO's are real, the reply is "Of course they are real, UFO means unidentified flying object, if you see something in the sky and you don't know what it is, it's called a UFO".

What they're really asking is if flying spaceship/ saucers are real. It's a lot easier and faster to say UFO than a flying spaceship/ saucer. Has the word UFO always been used in this way? It's weird isn't it.

UFO and flying spaceship/ saucer have different meanings but they are the same thing? Is the word UFO a synonym for flying spaceship/ saucer?

My brain hurts.

The term was coined by US Air Force in 1952, which defined UFOs as those objects that remain unidentified after scrutiny by expert investigators: this definition is still, in my humble opinion, the best one: it's not enough that someone spots something in the sky that he can't explain: a real UFO is some object that is still unidentified after all the ordinary explanations have been ruled out: for example, these were UFOs.
The answer to your questions "UFO and flying spaceship/ saucer have different meanings but they are the same thing? Is the word UFO a synonym for flying spaceship/ saucer?" is no, plain and simple: it's not even a matter of opinions. The two meanings are often mixed, but while UFOs are a confirmed phenomenon, alien spacecrafts' existence has yet to be proven: there are many evidences but sadly, not a single proof.
Thanks for sharing

reply to post by internos


No, thank you.

I can now sleep in peace.

If a UFO is a an extraterrestrial craft, it's no longer unidentified.

Think about it... UFO means UFO, not flying saucer.

Some useful definitions :
www.nicap.org...

Short answer . It is not a word. It is a series of letters. These stand for (as you know) Unidentified Flying Object. This term can and should be used for any flying object, that cannot be identified. When an object which was thusly classified, is identified it ceases to be a UFO and becomes, well whatever the hell it actualy was. Really simple. No mystery.

I remember seeing a doc. or interview with someone in the know who said that when the term flying saucer and UFO were first being coined the Air force wanted to go with UFO as a bit more disinfo in the equation, and further throw the general public off the true scent because they already knew what they were (there goes the unidentified part) and that they didn't "fly" in the conventional sense of the word at all, (there goes the flying part too)

Based on the observations and anecdotal evidence, the engineers figured the craft were using anti grav. technology that created gravity wells in front of the craft, causing a constant state of free fall and it was this state of free fall they, who ever they was, continued to manipulate to achieve light and or beyond speed.

I wish I had an eidetic memory so I could source this but at least it can be added to the discussion to further explore the topic.

sparrow

Xtraemes posted a great thread here dealing with the term 'UFO' and I still think Dr Hyneck's definition is the best one I've read:

"The reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon the land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible."

The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry by J. Allen Hynek, Henry Regnery, Chicago, 1972, p. 10.

Link

Perhaps we should start using the acronym U. A. P. ('Unidentified Aerial Phenomena') - it does sound more scientific and perhaps certain people won't display a psychologically conditioned response when hearing the term.

reply to post by karl 12


We could do that. The only problem I have with that, is that some people will see that, and realise that the re classification is superficial , and that may lead to people mistrusting the evidence for UFO even more!

reply to post by TrueBrit


Truebrit, I do hear what you're saying but the term has been in use for quite some time now - Dr Richard Haines makes some good points about the phrase here and its been used in several scientific papers on the subject.

As for folks taking evidence seriously - I think there are plenty of reasons why the subject warrants rigorous scientific attention and I don't think genuine sceptics would mind too much what the phenomenon was called (could be wrong about though )


Reports:


UFO Evidence -The NICAP Report


56 Pilot Sightings Involving Electromagnetic Effects


Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects -Committee on Science and Astronautics - US House of Representatives,1968.


The Rockefeller Briefing Document


Aviation Safety in America: A Previously Neglected Factor


Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]