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.

 

Time to re-classify the term 'UFO"?

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
My main objection and also as well to many others, is that the "UFO" label, is a term that is confrontational.

Alot of people vocally spell the letters - UFO; but alot of other people say - UFO- as one word. This one word [UFO] term can sound like in English as: You foe. The term "foe," means - your enemy.

So how in tarnation, are you going to explain to a space alien, that you are interviewing for the first time, as you are representing the ambassador from Earth - when his space alien translator, construes the term UFO, as YOU FOE? This label, could cause repercussions that could lead to interstellar war.

The "UFO" label is a term that has seen its time, but I believe it will hang on for some time to come, because the UFO term rolls easily off the lips.

Cheers,

Erno86


edit on 28-8-2011 by Erno86 because: typo

edit on 28-8-2011 by Erno86 because: typo




posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
P.S.- Please dont forget to make up a new label for [ if you think its needed,] - USO, as in unidentified submerged object. But... I don't have any objections or qualms with that labeling.

Foofighter's forever,

Erno86
edit on 28-8-2011 by Erno86 because: spelling



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jimbo999
 


You might be onto something. I prefer UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) for things which are truly unidentified and flying--meaning it uses the atmosphere to generate lift.

For a case like the Phoenix Lights, I'd call that a UVO (Unconventional Vectoring Object). It wasn't vague. A lot of folks witnessed something absolutely abnormal that night.

UVOs can be broken down further into:

Non-terrestrial (Phoenix Lights)

or

Terrestrial (Aurora SR-72) FYI - Doesn't mean it exists, just showing an example




edit on 28-8-2011 by Scramjet76 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by N3k9Ni
I can kind of see that. Maybe categorize them as "Kind" as in "close encounters of...".

UFOs of the first kind (UFO1) would be unidentified lights.
UFOs of the second kind (UFO2) maybe something with an apparent structure or form.
UFOs of the third kind (UFO3), of course, would be the holy grail. Something that defies definition

Just my first thoughts. Hopefully someone will take this and refine it.


You stole my idea. I was thinking the same thing. A list of UFO types. UFO type 1 , UFO type 2 and so on. Now we just all have to some how get together and build a list of types we can all agree on. This is long over due.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
I would think that people who wish to prove the existence of E.T.....would concentrate on video....although video is not proof.....that shows an object performing manuevers that go against the laws of physics. Also....and I know this as a fact....objects that seem to be generating a very bright....either roadflare orange plasma encompasing and burning like glow....VERY BRIGHT....and like they are on fire. Not to be confused with Military Flares....which are similar but do not perform manuevers that are not consistent with the laws of physics.....

......or visable....non-triangular craft....these are ours.....but craft of either the classic saucer design or large cigar shaped....massive in size....that seem to be there one moment....then either fade away....or apear to be in more places than one at a given moment....or seem to change size or split into multiple forms.

These type of observations are consistant with a Gravitic Drive in use. The bright orange objects usually seem to be orb like in nature and are probes. They appear to be on fire but will move with a speed that is impossible in an atmosphere. Split Infinity



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by fixer1967
 


Just my first thoughts. Lots of room for improvement. If you can expand on it and make it more functional, go for it.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999

Originally posted by AuirOverrun
agreeing with the post above mine. anything flying and unidentified IS a UFOcalling it a UNL or whatever isn't going to make ANY difference at all.


I think you're missing the whole point of what I said in the OP.

2nd.

J.


changing the term will do nothing.
If its in the sky, if you don't know what it is, whether its an alien, a star, a satellite, a chinese lantern, ITS CALLED A UFO. changing it so it's called something different is going to do absolutely nothing. UFO doesn't refer to an alien aircraft.
i think you're missing a few brain cells -.-



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn
a ufo is a ufo. if its flying and unidentified. weather its an orb, saucer, bug, triangle, humanoid. its a ufo.

but good luck.


Well, that's exactly the problem. The point of the thread is that there is a need to distinguish unremarkable ufo's from those that deserve our time and attention. The problem with the term UFO is that it is insufficient to make that distinction. A UFO is a UFO. That's all well and good but it leads to a great deal of wasted time. Take a given UFO versus another UFO side by side and likely one (or both) reports will be complete dead ends in terms of investigation potential. There are specific conditions that a UFO report would have to meet to be "interesting" and there exist such cases.

An object can be an UFO and also be:
Big or Small
Fast or Slow
Have distinguishable features or be too far and blurry
Fly erratically or simply appear to be floating, coasting or falling.

There is a class of people, which I would not hesitate to call true believers, who will accept anything that cannot be positively identified as possible evidence of extraterrestrials. They are exceedingly few, but they provide substance to the straw-man that is often built by those who are "true debunkers" in order to discredit any time spent investigating the subject.

I think there is another group of us (myself included) that, while interested in UFO reports, will not only reject a vast majority of those reports, but also not even necessarily consider them supportive of the extraterrestrial hypothesis right away, however the hypothesis might remain a possibility. Don't get me wrong, I would not consider those to be "aliens" I consider those to be *not crap*. Maybe they are military? maybe they are inter dimensional? maybe an elaborate but entertaining hoax? who knows, all I know is that they are not utter crap. I don't have my ego invested on "being right" about any option, only that those reports are interesting and have not demonstrated an utter lack of potential for investigation.

In my opinion the distinguishing features that make a UFO worthy of any more than a second of my time are:
1. Exhibiting flight characteristics that do not match natural phenomena or that would seem to require accelerations that no man made object is known to withstand.
2. appearance of intelligent flight (somewhat subjective, but it excludes any "coasting" flight or ballistic flight, so immediately videos of satellites or meteors should be excluded.
3. Not a dead end in terms of investigative potential: Could there be more witnesses to learn about? any possible trace evidence to look into? or is it just an impossible to track down video on youtube?

-rrr



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn
a ufo is a ufo. if its flying and unidentified. weather its an orb, saucer, bug, triangle, humanoid. its a ufo.

but good luck.


Nope, not entirely true.

- humanoid
- bugs

are NOT objects, there lifeforms or biological entities.

Do you concider yourself an 'object'?



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Required01
 



Originally posted by Required01

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn
a ufo is a ufo. if its flying and unidentified. weather its an orb, saucer, bug, triangle, humanoid. its a ufo.

but good luck.


Nope, not entirely true.

- humanoid
- bugs

are NOT objects, there lifeforms or biological entities.

Do you concider yourself an 'object'?


dictionary.com


noun 1. anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.


Answers.com

n. Something perceptible by one or more of the senses, especially by vision or touch; a material thing.



edit on 30-8-2011 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by rickyrrr
 


Tl;DR... a ufo is a ufo. there is no need to get fancy here.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Required01
 


Im a thing yeah. and I didn't say If i was flying around.. I said humanoid. and if a bug is flying, and noone knows what it is..... guess what that means
its a ufo lol.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Agreed.

When scrambled fighter pilots get a visual on the culprit violating their respective nation's airspace and showing up on their military's radar, it should be permanently and openly logged, without exception. It would, in the UK's case, I would imagine require a complete rewriting of the Official Secrets Act, however when an object is picked up on radar and intercepting aircraft report it to maneouver and ascend of speeds exceeding 20,000 mph, stopping and turning on a pinhead and lacking visible wings and control surfaces, command should just bite the bullet and log "Scrambled to engage alien spacecraft. Craft soon departed". None of these threatening debriefs and "keep it to yourself; don't tell anyone about it" bollocks.

But I guess we, the public, would "panic". Also, our governmental slave-masters couldn't be stripped of their benevolent power and dominance over us now could they?



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by jimbo999
 


That is a terrible idea. I think Unidentified suits them fine. When they are identified they lose the moniker. Simple. Why make things more complicated than they have to be? If anything things should be easier.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join