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.

 

The 'U' in UFO (Alien or not Alien???) & UFO Congress 2011

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Okay, I am going on a little rant here, but I have been noticing in the media that a lot of attention has been placed on UFOs as being related to "aliens" and "life visiting us from other planets" and yet, every time someone who says they saw something in the sky as a "UFO" we automatically assume it has to do with aliens!

Why not investigate the probability that any UFO in the sky can be something terrestrial instead of extraterrestrial.
For example, in an AOL news article UFOs to Be Discussed in Congress, Alejandro Rojas of Open Minds Production (which is hosting the 20th annual International UFO Congress ufocongress.com..., or IUFOC), stated that:

...nearly 30 speakers will travel from around the world to Scottsdale, Ariz., on Wednesday for a five-day conference with topics including alien technology, government cover-ups, black projects, crop circles and ultimate disclosure of extraterrestrial visits to Earth.


The UFO Congress runs from February 23-27, 2011

Some of these speakers in attendance include:
1) Paul Hellyer, former Canadian minister of national defense;
2) Retired U.S. Army Col. John Alexande, a UFO myth and reality insider
3) Linda Moulton Howe, Emmy Award-winning TV producer and investigative reporter
4) Nuclear physicist Stanton Friedman
5) Best-selling cover-up and conspiracy author Jim Marrs
6) Award-winning space and missile defense consultant Carol Rosin
7) Retired U.S. Air Force Col. Charles Halt, the highest ranking U.S. military officerer(speaking about his personal, dramatic UFO experiences while in the military)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In other words: 'Unidentified' doesn't mean there are spaceships filled with little green (or beige) life-forms on it - do note Marvin the Martian in my avatar.

What it means is that anything that you cannot 100% identify becomes unidentified. But are you the expert in the field of aerial crafts in our skies? No. You just make an observation. But the problem here is that we suddenly think of aliens when we see something in our skies that we don't normally see on a daily basis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For example, Andre G. Bordeleau (astronomer and science writer for the Montreal Gazette Newspaper in Canada) makes a claim from one of his articles: The U in UFOs



Seeing a UFO is actually admitting seeing something in the sky that you cannot identify. Therefore, it follows that you cannot ascertain its true nature. And you certainly cannot determine if it is extraterrestrial in origin.

However, the term "UFO" has acquired a much different connotation over the years. If you spotted a UFO, it automatically means you saw an alien spacecraft (or, for the true conspiracy buffs, a secret military plane built with alien technology). This astounding leap in logic is not only scientifically flawed; it reflects a shocking lack in critical thinking.

Star Trek notwithstanding, all past and current observations support Einstein's Theory of Relativity: You cannot exceed the speed of light. Even if alien civilizations with a technology far beyond our own did exist,they could not, and would not, spend decades or centuries travelling through space to reach Earth just to "buzz" us, abduct a few humans (an even more preposterous urban legend) and then return home without making official contact (and you can sense the conspiracy buffs sharpening their pencils over that one!).

Further, considering how long people have reported them, the "aliens" have apparently been able to escape the military grasp of every single government on this planet but not the uninviting glare of average citizens. Why are they so easily detectable?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So that being the case, what do you think of when you hear the words "UFO sightings" or "UFO" and how can you explain your thoughts clearly as where you got the idea from those words?

I first thought UFOs had to do with seeing things in the air that could not be identified. But mainstream media (youtube, news, ATS, the list goes on...) now identifies the word UFO with Aliens...so without even seeing what is written, or seeing what picture/video is available for viewing, I now think of Aliens. I should be thinking government aircraft used for military purposes or space exploration instead.

What are your thoughts?

edit on 21-2-2011 by Skywatcher2011 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Nice rant. It's Predictive Programing. When we hear UFO we subconsciously associate it with aliens before any mammalian brain processing takes place... which never does in some people. Same thing applies to the term "conspiracy theorist", one of my favorites, immediately upon hearing those 2 words, the brain forms an opinion predetermined to be associated with nutjobs and unintelligent, discredited people. It's sad but that's the way it is right now.
Like Jordan Maxwell says, "They get what they pay for." It's the way it is because that's how they directed it all.
edit on 21-2-2011 by JibbyJedi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
 


Skywatcher, my opinion is this. I know what UFO means. You know what it means. Morons and newscasters might get the definition wrong fairly often, but those people dont matter a damn, because thier minds are barely switched on, and as such are useless . Since these folks are less use to the cause of figuring out what UFO actualy are, than a chocolate teapot in the Sahara , I would suggest you avoid wasting your energy on them in any way, and plough all your efforts into other things.
Its thier choice after all , if they want to be ignorant douchewaffles. You just carry on being smarter than them, and things will work out just fine !



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Because the term UFO has become synonymous with extraterrestrial vehicle. Word usage and terminology changes over the years and while the U in UFO does stand for unidentified the term its self has, in common parlance, come to mean extraterrestrial vehicle. Its arguing semantics really, ask most people what they think of when you say UFO and they will describe an extraterrestrial vehicle.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Versa
 


Versa, words are only changing so unhelpfuly fast because so few people remain on this Earth who either respect our past , or for that matter our future. The meaning of the abbreviation U.F.O will never change as long as the people using it are educated correctly on the subject.

ITS UNIDENTIFIED, FLYING OBJECT! Not extraterrestrial speedwagon, not alien flyboy lovebug, just a completely unidentified flying object, so called because no one can positively identify it.
The meaning of this abbreviation , is NOT changing, because the meaning of the words in the english language are NOT changing. Idiot halfwits may be mistreating this beautiful language, but the language itself remains the same.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
If UFOs are becoming synonymous with extra-terrestrials, then perhaps their should be a new acronym for crafts which may be identified as being alien or foreign, such as ETFO = Extra-Terrestrial Flying Object.

By the way, has anyone also noticed some new alien genre movies are coming out this year?
Battle: Los Angeles
Mars Needs Moms!
Rango
Super 8
Cowboys and Aliens
Transformers: Dark of the Moon



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
I agree too many people blame UFO's on aliens. Most of these people arent even legally qualified to hold a gun or can be trusted alone with a child. What I am saying is that these people have no expertise and are not working professionals. They have no clue what their looking at and most likely its just natural phenomenon. Due to their poor educations most likely alot of people who claim and that I have met personally have gone to public schools. Once I hear hat then I know that their judgement is instantly whats at question due to them being hampered by never having really gotten their lives together. I see shows on tv where they let just random people talk about UFO's without doing a background check or even verifying what makes them an expert in atmospheric phenomenon if they could even pronounce the word. Seems alot of people just blame what they dont understand on magic or god and even aliens. Its all quite funny but always good for a real laugh so I always listen but never take them seriously, I mean who would?



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
 


I thought Rango was about a lizard of some sort, rather than an alien. Again, I dont think hollywood can help it , there are so many stories to tell , and the public are so hungry for the alien themed stuff at the moment. I think its consumer choice driven, and also driven by the fact that SCI FI tends to look better in the fantastic HD or 3D resolutions we are now capable of veiwing, than do other genres of film. I guess you could argue, why pay thirty million pounds to make a film about anything less than the grand idea of plying the routes through the cosmos?



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by Versa
 


Versa, words are only changing so unhelpfuly fast because so few people remain on this Earth who either respect our past , or for that matter our future. The meaning of the abbreviation U.F.O will never change as long as the people using it are educated correctly on the subject.


A cry that has been heard though the centuries, I would be speaking Anglo-Saxon, old English, Latin or some other language from the past now if language didnt evolve and word usage didnt change. Even the OED accepts that word usage changes and updates its entries.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
 

The source of it all being attributed to 'aliens' is really pretty simple. The phenomenon is hard to explain. It is mystifying and seems alien to us. In a technological age it is a small imaginative leap to cry alien - even with little evidence of anything extraterrestrial.

However, some aspects of the UFO phenomena may well have to do with E.T. We should consider all possibilities.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
So let's break this word 'UFO' by definitions from a variety of sources:

www.urbandictionary.com...

Abbreviation for "Unidentified Flying Object". The USAF defines a UFO as: Anything that relates to 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 identified as a familiar object. (USAF Regulation 200-2)


dictionary.reference.com...

any unexplained moving object observed in the sky, especially one assumed by some observers to be of extraterrestrial origin.


www.merriam-webster.com...

an unidentified flying object; especially : flying saucer


en.wikipedia.org...

An unidentified flying object (usually abbreviated to UFO or U.F.O.) is any unusual apparent object or phenomenon in the sky whose cause cannot be identified by the observer, or (in a narrower definition) by investigators; though in popular usage it more loosely means alien spacecraft, being one explanation (among several) offered for such sightings.


Btw...as I was searching for more debate material on media...here is a Youtube video uploaded Feb. 21, 2011 of a UFO over China.... (looks to be a fake, but I will let you decide that)


Does everyone remember the UFO over Utah that dealt with 'Flare-Like Objects' this year? www.aolnews.com...
It is actually interesting how in this report they actually state:


Local airport and military officials report nothing unusual happened in the sky over Utah on the night in question, so the incident remains, for the time being, unidentified, in keeping with the definition of UFO: unidentified flying object.


Interestingly enough, there was a CNN news article which included extra-terrestrials as part of UFOs:

UFOs eyed nukes, ex-Air Force personnel say September 27th, 2010


UFOs Eyed Nukes


Seven former U.S. Air Force personnel gathered in Washington Monday to recount UFO sightings over nuclear weapons facilities in decades past – accounts that a UFO researcher says show extraterrestrial beings are interested in the world’s nuclear arms race and may be sending humans a message.


Okay, so a UFO is spotted and immediately there is reference to Earth being visited by ET's...why would ET's have an interest in nuclear weaponry? I was thinking it would be more of other world leaders being interested in this sort of espionage.


“I believe - these gentlemen believe - that this planet is being visited by beings from another world, who for whatever reason have taken an interest in the nuclear arms race which began at the end of World War II,

Right, so what do war, nukes, and UFOs here have in common? It would be more about technological advances in flying objects possibly funded by the federal reserve or you, taxpayers, so that a new way of war can happen...or a conspiracy can take place. And "beings" being who??? Another world? Wow, does media ever stay on topic of trying to identify the craft before coming to a conclusion??


“Regarding the missile shutdown incidents, my opinion … is that whoever are aboard these craft are sending a signal to both Washington and Moscow,

So what does Moscow have anything to do with this siting? Is there a clear connection between Utah, Moscow, and the UFO???
And the final quote from the above article ends with yet another reference to ETs as opposed to investigating further into the UFO aircraft itself:


A reporter asked how many of the former military personnel subscribed to Hastings’ theory that the message of extraterrestrials is that humans should get rid of nuclear weapons....

Again, blatant assumptions in the media. I think there is something big going on in the idea that UFOs are being related to ETs, including in movies, so that we are prepared for the continuous brainwashing of linking UFOs to ETs vs government...otherwise we would have known more about Area 51.

edit on 21-2-2011 by Skywatcher2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
 


I thought Rango was about a lizard of some sort, rather than an alien. Again, I dont think hollywood can help it , there are so many stories to tell , and the public are so hungry for the alien themed stuff at the moment. I think its consumer choice driven, and also driven by the fact that SCI FI tends to look better in the fantastic HD or 3D resolutions we are now capable of veiwing, than do other genres of film. I guess you could argue, why pay thirty million pounds to make a film about anything less than the grand idea of plying the routes through the cosmos?


You're right...I was too speedy when I was typing..I meant to type in the movie 'Paul'...see trailer below:

Also notice how they make this alien friendly to humans. Is this a conspiracy to warm up the feelings of humans toward an ET race?
edit on 21-2-2011 by Skywatcher2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
 


I'll add some new tv shows for fun;

"Outcasts" mankind tries to start a new civilization on a new planet.
"Terra Nova" human starts a new civilization on a new planet ALSO, but this time in look like in the past where there are dinosaurs.
And top of its all is "FALLING SKIES" extrterrestrial force invades us and we become the resistance.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
 


I highly doubt that this is a conspiracy to endear the human race to any visitor species. Knowing well the carreers and sense of humour of the people involved with the film Paul, I would suggest that this film is perhaps an antidote to the Independance Day/ Skyline / X-files style alien film. At the end of the day its a laugh, and I cant see any of the producers or the writers getting involved with a conspiracy of that nature, do to the fact that all thier work has been totaly bonkers and based in the best sort of humour, rather than having any serious messege to send.
Shaun Of The Dead, Hot Fuzz... these are not the works of a government disinformation campaign



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
 

The source of it all being attributed to 'aliens' is really pretty simple. The phenomenon is hard to explain. It is mystifying and seems alien to us. In a technological age it is a small imaginative leap to cry alien - even with little evidence of anything extraterrestrial.

However, some aspects of the UFO phenomena may well have to do with E.T. We should consider all possibilities.


I think the idea that UFOs are extraterrestrial is the result of a process of elimination. There are a couple facts to take note of in this regard. UFO reports exist - and I'm talking here about the 'true' UFOs, the ones meeting a definition like J. Allen Hynek used: The reports contain enough information and are sufficiently credible and have been investigated by people who have the knowledge and/or technical expertise to identify the thing if it were anything conventional, and yet it remains unidentified.

The data contained in the UFO reports - when you look at enough of them - falls into relatively neat patterns. Lots and lots of people describe the same kinds of objects behaving in the same kinds of ways all over the world. Physical traces reported to have been left behind are very similar in reports worldwide. Two salient points are that the objects reported seem to be physical, technological objects with mass - objects that give radar returns and leave imprints when they land - and that they appear to be under some kind of intelligent control as evidenced by their tendency to maneuver, fly in formation, and apparently react to attempts to get too close to them.

So, if they are technological and intelligently controlled objects, who do they belong to? For our purposes, there are really only two options that need to be considered: ours and not ours. I have a hard time believing - after looking at our relatively primitive state of technology in 2011 - that we had perfected such technology as UFOs are reported to exhibit back in World War II. On the other hand, I find it easy to believe that we are not the only intelligent life in the universe, and that there may be many civilizations out there who are many millions of years a. of us in their understanding of nature. I see no reason to suspect that these civilizations aren't perfectly capable of doing things that we consider to be impossible. And besides, couldn't our entire galaxy have been colonized long ago without the need to invoke faster than light travel? Isn't that the lead-in to Fermi's so-called paradox?

That's not to say that UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin, only that we've eliminated most every other possibility that we can think of, and the ETH really isn't a half bad explanation for what people have been seeing. The bottom line is really this: Could we build these things 70 years ago?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   
If you are the same Marvin from OMF you are not saying anything new.


P.S. James Carrion has been right at least for one.
edit on 23-2-2011 by realitydiscovered because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker
The data contained in the UFO reports - when you look at enough of them - falls into relatively neat patterns. Lots and lots of people describe the same kinds of objects behaving in the same kinds of ways all over the world. Physical traces reported to have been left behind are very similar in reports worldwide. Two salient points are that the objects reported seem to be physical, technological objects with mass - objects that give radar returns and leave imprints when they land - and that they appear to be under some kind of intelligent control as evidenced by their tendency to maneuver, fly in formation, and apparently react to attempts to get too close to them.

Agreed. I find it curious that some people argue - not necessarily in this thread - how there is no aspect of any sighting which would imply an extraterrestrial connection. I find that rather hard to believe if we take into account what some people are reporting. I've noticed a trend too where it is argued that UFOs are nothing but blurry lights in the sky. Now if this were true, I would understand the reluctance to make an ET connection. The problem is that it is not true.

Suggesting UFOs are merely "unidentified" is fallacious. Just because the origin of an object cannot be conclusively determined does not mean it cannot be described in detail and categorized. There are plenty of good sightings where seemingly engineerd vehicles of some kind were seen, clearly artificial constructs. To reduce these in descriptive terms to "unidentified" does not do these cases justice.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg

Agreed. I find it curious that some people argue - not necessarily in this thread - how there is no aspect of any sighting which would imply an extraterrestrial connection.


If we have something that is confirmed extraterrestrial to compare it to yes. But we don't so no, it's an argument from ignorance.


Suggesting UFOs are merely "unidentified" is fallacious. Just because the origin of an object cannot be conclusively determined does not mean it cannot be described in detail and categorized. There are plenty of good sightings where seemingly engineerd vehicles of some kind were seen, clearly artificial constructs. To reduce these in descriptive terms to "unidentified" does not do these cases justice.


Even if we can describe it in detail we still don't know what it is, it remains unidentified until we know what it is.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011
If UFOs are becoming synonymous with extra-terrestrials, then perhaps their should be a new acronym for crafts which may be identified as being alien or foreign, such as ETFO = Extra-Terrestrial Flying Object.

By the way, has anyone also noticed some new alien genre movies are coming out this year?
Battle: Los Angeles
Mars Needs Moms!
Rango
Super 8
Cowboys and Aliens
Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Don't say that. You'll get trolled
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by jclmavg

Agreed. I find it curious that some people argue - not necessarily in this thread - how there is no aspect of any sighting which would imply an extraterrestrial connection.


If we have something that is confirmed extraterrestrial to compare it to yes. But we don't so no, it's an argument from ignorance.

This is sheer nonsense. Suppose SETI picks up a signal, the scientists conclude it is extraterrestrial. Cripmeister protests to this explanation, because we do not have another signal "confirmed extraterrestrial to compare it to". Notice how Cripmeister has set up his fallacious argument. We need to know about extraterrestrials, their craft, materials, propulsion, society, and what more in advance. He has thus assumed it is necessary to know the results of the discovery beforehand to even make the discovery. Patently absurd logic.

Cripmeister does not appear to understand science. For we would not need "something confirmed extraterrestrial" (translation: Proof) before we can even begin to consider the evidence, before we can put forward a (working) hypothesis, a proposed explanation for a set of observations that may or may not be satisfactory.

An argument from ignorance would involve the claim that the ETH is true since it has not been disproven. Nobody has made that argument here, and most certainly not I. Strawmen, a lack of understanding of how science works, what is next?


Even if we can describe it in detail we still don't know what it is, it remains unidentified until we know what it is.
Are you saying no conclusions can be drawn, or hypotheses can be put forward? Oh my, you really seem to think you need proof before we can consider any other evidence or propose and test any hypotheses? Cart before horse, eh?

edit on 23-2-2011 by jclmavg because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join