We need to redefine the meaning of UFO

I have been thinking about this for a while now and have come to the conclusion that the term UFO is perhaps one of the most misused and abused term we have. All too often we see video's and thread's claiming proof, or otherwise possible evidence, of a UFO but once we look all we see is something unexplained in the sky. Why is that? Just because something is unidentifiable and in the air dose not mean it is flying.

I think it is time we distinguish between apparent intelligent controled flight and what is not.

1.The action or process of flying through the air: "an eagle in flight"; "the history of space flight".
2.An act of flying; a journey made through the air or in space, esp. a scheduled journey made by an airline.

This is the definition of 'Flight'(Flying), which represents the 'F' in UFO. It seems to me that 'Flight' implies in part or in whole that this is a intelligent choice. Meaning a leaf floating through the air is not flying but rather floating, fluttering in the air, being propelled and/or manuvered by it's surroundings(in this case, air). But something intelligently controled like a drone or a maned craft would be in flight, by definition as an 'act'.

So, from this point forward, could we try to establish if the unknown object we are presenting as a UFO is actually in intelligent flight before claiming so? Just because there is a dot in the sky moving in a singal direction dose not equate to flight. It only means there is a unknown object in the sky. UFO already carries a conotation as to imply 'aliens' to many, so at the very lease we should strive to use the term UFO appropriately and make sure that what we are looking at and/or presenting actually has charesteristic(s) of intelligent control/flight before presenting as such.

Maybe we should start to call everyting else UAO's (unidentified areal objects), if the 'act' of flight can not be distinguished.

reply to post by HomeBrew


Flying may refer to:
The act or process of flight
Aviation

reply to post by HomeBrew


How about we just leave it the same, and its either an unidentified flying object... or an unidentified floating object.

Much easier.

reply to post by HomeBrew


You're not alone in thinking that the term UFO has too much baggage to be taken seriously anymore. But there is already an alternative that many investigators now prefer:

UAP - Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon

As I understand it, this term originated in early USAF documentation, and is recently making a comeback because it is scientifically more appropriate than UFO.

Disregard, I read it wrong.

reply to post by HomeBrew


This has all been debated before and without a decent result. An unknown must be classified as an unknown and then determined from the evidence what it was or wasn't. More than likely, some portion of those making a judgement on the evidence will deem it incomplete and the UFO remains being dubbed a UFO true to the original meaning of the word.

But in a historical sense, that is OK. the term UFO was created by Capt. Edward Ruppelt, the first head of Project Blue Book. In effect, it was a brilliant way to lump a sighting of an unofficial craft (alien machine) among a dozen of other phenomena. They couldn't have a classification of SAC (Supposed Alien Craft) could they?

These days the title is even more bent into other uses because the US definitely has craft of our own, triangles and probably a dozen other that are present in our skies that were not there half a century ago. And it would see evident that they fly them around to create shouts of "UFO! UFO!"

The term is known in about every language on earth either in its direct english initials or a derivative. That is good for the cause because the term has taken upon a life and meaning of its own and not the one intended.

reply to post by HomeBrew
How about an Unknown Flying Rorschach Test? UFRT.



In all these years, the UFO Enigma has changed but it's the same old story when it comes to the way we put meaning into what gets reported. We all do it.

Let's say someone's walking home at 2am? A bright red object streaks across the sky...

'Debunker' - 'I must be tired and seeing things.'
'Highly religious' - 'Bless me Jesus! Satan's demons! The End Times are upon us. Amen!'
'Amateur astronomer' - 'What an odd meteor.'
'Believer' - 'Take me with you ET. Please!'
'Truth Seeker' - 'The Universe is showing Me that I'm on the Path of Truth.''
'PSH Pelicanist' - 'My mind just misinterpreted a helicopter and missed the engines. No more Star Trek tonight!'
'Secret Tech-guy' - 'I KNEW the Aurora existed! Ha!'
'Steve Greer' - 'Engaging protocols. Protocols engaged! Gimme an option on your technology! We can be rich!'
'Exopolitician' - 'This is what I feared. The Nubia Council has broken the A'zzz Accords and war has begun!'
'Secret Signals guy' - 'The whole of dimensional space and time has altered just to show me a signal.'
'Hoaxer' - 'Whoa! I can't wait to tell everyone about the football-field craft that just flew past.'

Do you see what I mean? A fast red light can mean all those things to different people. All the inventing and re-inventing of new acronyms and phrases won't ever stop people interpreting experiences in their own way. Likewise, all the decent UFO cases are similarly misinterpreted and given layers of meaning they don't deserve.

Whatever new term we could give to the enigma - someone would come along and it'd all start again.

reply to post by Kandinsky


Do you see what I mean?


No, I don't...as a matter of fact, you have generalized to the point of absurdity.


If you had taken the time to understand the different demographics involved, your watered down examples may have been more effective, but here's to hoping.


And no, we all don't do it...though I have feeling that deep down you want it that way.


Why even take the time to pursue this field guy, when you have already made up your mind..? And misinterpreted..? Of course, the topic is subjective...


A little bit of common sense would have helped you in evaluating the OP more effectively...

reply to post by facelift
No mate, you don't get it and have misunderstood what I wrote. It's par for the course around here.

My point is that it isn't the name we use (UFO, ET, UAP etc) that matters. People will interpret the name as meaning what they want it to mean. So people can plan all kinds of new acronyms and the UFO/ET/UAP/aliens/demons/hoaxes field will stay the same.

UFO is good enough for me until someone manages to make the U redundant.

reply to post by Kandinsky


Oh, ok...


I'd like to give our community a little more credit than that, but it all falls on personal perception...so, it would appear the topic and this community are at the whim of those that are jaded, and delusional.


Unfortunate indeed...

Whats there to REDIFINE...

There is only ONE definition to UFO...

Unidentyfied Flying Object...

Thats it..

Its an Object, it flies, its UNIDENTYFIED

No more, no less

reply to post by facelift

post by facelift
it would appear the topic and this community are at the whim of those that are jaded, and delusional.

I think most of the time it's the latter , you just need to look around this board to see that .
Some recent examples ....
Scientists to dive for Baltic Sea "UFO"
Compilation of the Best UFO Sightings from May 2012
Spiral UFOS?
You don't get much more delusional than the Baltic sea UFO , that's not even flying but its still called a UFO.
Its more a case of wanting to believe that a rock formation is a crashed space ship and seeing what they want to see in the sonar image , even down to the skid mark from its crash

Originally posted by HomeBrew

1.The action or process of flying through the air: "an eagle in flight"; "the history of space flight".
2.An act of flying; a journey made through the air or in space, esp. a scheduled journey made by an airline.

What about a "hover"? There is no "through" the air as defined above, just "in", and yet "hovering" can be defined as "flight".

And if you give a definition like you did in your OP can you please quote a source and include ALL definitions like this:
(note last entry for 1.)

FLYING
adjective
1. making flight or passing through the air; that flies: a flying insect; an unidentified flying object.
2. floating, fluttering, waving, hanging, or moving freely in the air: flying banners; flying hair.
3. extending through the air.
4. moving swiftly.
5. made while moving swiftly: a flying leap.

Source: Dictionary.com - "FLYING"

The main reason for not redefining the meaning of UFO is quite simple really isn't it? How can you define something UNIDENTIFIED?

The term ufo means whatever you want it to mean-- simple as that. The most important letter in this term is 'U'.... Most of the time we don't really know what we're being told or see in photos/ videos really happened (as described/ claimed whatever you want to call it) to start with. The words object & flying are irrelevant until one has determined if what you're told actually happened before anyone has the right to use the 'U' word!

I guess what I am trying to say in a nutshell is that just because something is unidentified, and in the air, dose not necessairly mean it's a UFO. Unidentified? Absolutely. And object? Perhaps, but flying? This is debatable. I merely suggest that we answer yes to all 3 before calling it a UFO. Insisting that an Unidentified object is in the act of flight is parallel to insisting it is being intelligently controled. If an unidentified object in the air can not be determined that it is actually partaking in the act of flight, it's just a unidentified object in the sky, not a UFO. To me, there is a difference.

reply to post by HomeBrew
Hey Home.... I find it slightly annoying when I hear folks use the term 'window screen'... It's a screen that shields us from the wind-- not from windows. The term ufo gets thrown about all over the place-- we all understand this & take it with a pinch. Don't worry about it & move on my friend