Time to re-classify the term 'UFO"?

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by jimbo999

 

Historically, people have been trying a lot of definitions and they always end up meaning the same thing to other people (UFO). Leslie Kean has connections to NARCAP (and other groups) and has been using UAP (unidentified aerial phenomena), APRO used to use UAO (unidentified aerial object). Originally, lights, triangles and whatever else, everything was called flying saucers.

If you look around, the 3-letters have been broken down into other categories like 'balls of light (BOL),' 'nocturnal lights,''discs' and others.

At the end of the day, no matter what we call them, you say UFO (unidentified doohdah) and most on ATS think 'alien spaceship.' Even those folk swapping UFO for UAP, people's brains are switching it back to UFO and thinking 'Cool, aliens!'

Agreed. And I remember those subcategories from my earlier days of UFO interest. Remember the terms "Daytime Discs" and "Night-time Discs"? Even having those two different forums would help weed out the dreaded "Wandering Lights".

J.

If I remember it correctly, UFO was first used by the US Air Force Officer in charge of "Project Blue Beam"?

They were charged for a time with investigating all reported sightings of..."UFO's". They had a small budget and weren't taken very seriously, but seemed to be credible in their investigations.

It was the first time a "Government" dealt with this phenomenon, and although the investigation and Officer in charge was short lived...his term, UFO, is still with us.

Why change?

Here...


Maybe this could clear up a few of them. I had to dust it off. I haven't had to post this in a few years.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b1a21d6507b5.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by FrenchOsage
If I remember it correctly, UFO was first used by the US Air Force Officer in charge of "Project Blue Beam"?

They were charged for a time with investigating all reported sightings of..."UFO's". They had a small budget and weren't taken very seriously, but seemed to be credible in their investigations.

It was the first time a "Government" dealt with this phenomenon, and although the investigation and Officer in charge was short lived...his term, UFO, is still with us.

Why change?

Yes, I remember Project Bluebook/Bluebeam. There was even a TV show in the 70's all about their escapades. They were really formed to 'de-bunk' UFO sightings in the US - and they did a pretty amazing job too it should be added! However, even J Allen Hynek en.wikipedia.org... who himself was their 'scientific adviser' later relented once he realized the reality of the subject matter, and joined the UFO community as founding member and head of the Center For UFO Studies (CUFOS).

Why change?

Because, as witnessed by the massive influx of poor quality videos of night time lights purporting to be "UFOs' on ATS recently, change is needed!

J.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Here...


Maybe this could clear up a few of them. I had to dust it off. I haven't had to post this in a few years.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b1a21d6507b5.jpg[/atsimg]

LOL! Hilarious! That should pretty well sort everything out - absolutely.

Not too sure about that 'Swamp Gas' one though...

J.

reply to post by jimbo999

Even having those two different forums would help weed out the dreaded "Wandering Lights".

One of the biggest obstacles is we need to weed out the dreaded 'It's aliens!' type of guys. They run the topic ragged with all the claims, bickering and YT videos. I'm following a thread where *a member* is giving chapter and verse on the thoughts and actions of a whole cast of aliens. I guess this subject is what it is and there's not much we can do but smile and shrug sometimes.

I like "UIDO" for "Unidentified Object". It's my word! I made it up. It could be pronounced as Un-eye-dee-oh. Yew-eye-dee-oh. or yew-eee-doh! So an UIDO would include extra/intra/inter-dimensional objects and government-made objects, too.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by jimbo999

 

Even having those two different forums would help weed out the dreaded "Wandering Lights".

One of the biggest obstacles is we need to weed out the dreaded 'It's aliens!' type of guys. They run the topic ragged with all the claims, bickering and YT videos. I'm following a thread where *a member* is giving chapter and verse on the thoughts and actions of a whole cast of aliens. I guess this subject is what it is and there's not much we can do but smile and shrug sometimes.

I personally don't have a problem with the "alien" hypothesis - as long as people can back-up their claims with *some* kind of evidence at least...even if it is a little ephemeral at times - but I can really do without the endless parade of pointless night-time videos of indiscriminate points of light in the the sky. Having them termed "UFOs" - with everything that entails - only lessens the credibility of the whole subject matter in my opinion. The over-prevalence of digital cameras these days is both a boon and a bane...

Originally posted by pikypiky
I like "UIDO" for "Unidentified Object". It's my word! I made it up. It could be pronounced as Un-eye-dee-oh. Yew-eye-dee-oh. or yew-eee-doh! So an UIDO would include extra/intra/inter-dimensional objects and government-made objects, too.

Uh-huh...

2nd

reply to post by SLAYER69



However Slayer, that was still not a very constructive reply. There has to be some way of reducing the video clutter we all have to suffer through on the UFO forum at ATS - and sometimes you have to think outside the box to a degree. I'm surprised you find the concept so heretical to be honest...

J.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Leslie Kean has connections to NARCAP (and other groups) and has been using UAP (unidentified aerial phenomena), APRO used to use UAO (unidentified aerial object).

I don't like the word "Object" for a lot of sightings. I'm reasonably certain there's no object involved in a significant percentage of sightings, which is why the word "phenomena" is preferable. Here's a picture that showed 2 "UFOs" according to the newspaper that published it, but UAP would be better and actually those knowledgeable in optical physics can identify the objects with certainty so they really aren't even unidentified to a trained observer.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2513e065cb52.jpg[/atsimg]
"This photo was published in the January 8, 2005 edition of the Mexican newspaper El Imparcial.

I also tend to doubt that the phenomenon seen by the Air France Captain in 1994 was a real "object" but is better called a phenomenon. Here is his description upon which I base that conclusion:

www.ufocusnz.org.nz...

We had no idea of the structure of the UFO that seemed to be embedded in a kind of magnetic or gravitational fields, with no lights or visual metallic structure, which gave it a really fuzzy appearance. The most incredible aspect is that it became transparent, dematerialized, and disappeared in about 10 to 20 seconds.

That's about as clear of a description of the lack of an "object" nature as I can imagine.

Here is yet a third daytime sighting, where the photographer was asked if it might be a reflection of some sort instead of actual objects, and the photographer said that was possible:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/209a237ac9da.jpg[/atsimg]
I wouldn't be surprised if the lights were reflections of some sort, but in any case, we really can't clearly see any structured objects in the photo.

So there we have three daytime sightings of things that might not even be objects, therefore it's not just a daytime/nighttime issue. However I'd agree the problem gets worse at night with people having no idea what they are looking at.

How do you like the Merriam Webster definition of UFO?

www.merriam-webster.com...

an unidentified flying object; especially : flying saucer

That's pretty contradictory. It's like saying, I don't know what it is, therefore it's unidentified, but I do know what it is, it's a flying saucer!

That definition doesn't sit real well with me so I'd agree we need a new definition, or a new term. UAP is fine with me.

reply to post by Arbitrageur
I prefer 'phenomena' above objects too. It allows for the huge difference in reports and would include sprites (before they were confirmed), BOLs, mirages and on towards the structured craft reports.

Incidentally, there was an intriguing sighting described on a recent Gralien podcast. One of the reporters described something that sounded like a triangular UAV ('size of two cars'). What was striking, if true, was that it essentially remained fixed in the air and wasn't 'hovering' in a conventional way. There was some extraneous chatter about a police presence and a truck with the back doors open (common knowledge that truckers do this so they can sleep without being jacked), but the core details were interesting.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/209a237ac9da.jpg[/atsimg]
I wouldn't be surprised if the lights were reflections of some sort, but in any case, we really can't clearly see any structured objects in the photo.

I think we've discussed this a long time back and both agreed that it looks like reflections on glass.

You pointed out a problem which is known for a long time already.

Usually, most researchers do not look into "lights at night" cases anymore, in most cases they are ignored anyway.

What about the traditional and easily understood "nocturnal lights" or "daylight discs" where such a description fits?

I used to get pretty annoyed by those videos of bols.
It got better when I started to use the star&flag system do determin if a clip is worth a look at all.
It's not working all the time, apparently many people can get pretty enthusiastic about those lights.
Now when I enter a thread, I read it first before looking at a video.
If it's just lights it get's clear pretty fast, most of the time on the first page.
All in all I have found my way to circumvent those clips.
I wouldn't mind a new term for those type of things though.
And while we're at it, let's coin a new term for 'proof' and '100%'....

Originally posted by Kandinsky

Historically, people have been trying a lot of definitions and they always end up meaning the same thing to other people (UFO). Leslie Kean has connections to NARCAP (and other groups) and has been using UAP (unidentified aerial phenomena), APRO used to use UAO (unidentified aerial object). Originally, lights, triangles and whatever else, everything was called flying saucers.

At the end of the day, no matter what we call them, you say UFO (unidentified doohdah) and most on ATS think 'alien spaceship.' Even those folk swapping UFO for UAP, people's brains are switching it back to UFO and thinking 'Cool, aliens!'

You are right Kandinsky, and to be honest, my small brain does the same.
And the reason for why my small brain does that is that the most plausible explanation for at least some of those UFOs/ UAPs/ UAOs and let’s not forgets the USOs are in fact 'alien spaceships'.

Therefore I suggest we add this definition to that list, we can also call them PACs, Possible Alien Crafts.

Personaly i dont think the classification will ever change because so called 'researchers' (people who make a living from writing books and giving lectures) take advantage of the fact that the term UFO is mistaken by many people as being flying saucers.

Also i think the government / airforce etc is partly to blame here , if someone reports something in the sky that is unidentified and they dont want to try to explain it they try to make out the person is reporting flying saucers so they can just brush it off.

A new classification would need several catagories with a logical progression that covers all kinds of sightings.

How about somthing like :

UFP : Unidentified Flying Phenomenon
Would cover any lights in the sky day or night that cant be identified as being part of anything solid.

UFCP : Unidentified Flying Controled Phenomenon
Would cover any lights in the sky day or night that cant be identified as being part of anything solid but are under some kind of control. For example lights that can follow aircraft.

UFS : Unidentified Flying Structure
Would cover anything that seems to be solid but not under obvious inteligent control. This may include things with lights on them.

UFC : Unidentified Flying Craft
Would cover anything that are UFS and seem to be under inteligent control. Things that make course changes and changes in speed.

UUFC : Unidentified Unconventional flying Craft
Would cover UFC classification plus doing things that are clearly impossible by known tecnological standards.

These classifications may need some tweaking but i think they are a step in the right direction.

I'm in agreement with the OP here, and i think the forum name is partly at fault. If we lump ALIENS and UFO in the same forum, the implication is that the term UFO is leaning more toward alien craft description. Yes, ufo does mean unidentified flying object, no argument there but having one forum for the two subjects causes people to get quite defensive/patronising/antagonistic, depending on their point of view.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
One of the biggest obstacles is we need to weed out the dreaded 'It's aliens!' type of guys. They run the topic ragged with all the claims, bickering and YT videos. I'm following a thread where *a member* is giving chapter and verse on the thoughts and actions of a whole cast of aliens. I guess this subject is what it is and there's not much we can do but smile and shrug sometimes.

Kandinsky, The guy is right.

I met a Pleiadean man the other day. He might have looked human but I know he was an alien 'cos that's what he told me. He says that guy on ATS is the only one on here telling the truth.

P.S. Don't trust the Venusians - apparently they have gone back on a treaty they signed with Eisenhower and gave the Reptilians Tesla's stolen note books.

Originally posted by boncho
UCL

Unidentified Chinese Lantern.

Who says there are aircrafts and planes? There are only chinese lanerns, balloons and that's it!