Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Common Misuse of the Term UFO.

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   
I've been debating whether or not to post this topic for a while now, but now I feel like I should with all the new UFO threads out there today.

Here on ATS, I've seen the term UFO constantly misused in various threads and posts. One of the main points is people saying "that's not a UFO!" My problem with this is the fact that it IS a UFO until it is identified as something else.

The term UFO states that it is UNIDENTIFIED. Until it has been identified as a Chinese lantern/military drone/helicopter/plane/etc, it is UNIDENTIFIED. Therefore, it is an Unidentified Flying Object.

Remember, the true definition of a UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object. Whether you believe it to be of alien origin has nothing to do with it. Most people here on ATS believe UFO = alien when in fact it doesn't. It just means it's Unidentified.

The motto here at ATS is Deny Ignorance, correct? So why is there so much ignorance around the term UFO? Is the concept that until an object flying in the sky is identified it's considered a UFO?


*Mods* If you believe this should be in the rant section, as it is a sort of rant, feel free to move this thread accordingly.




posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Believer101
 


Very well put. I know some may see this as simply an issue of semantics, but when working with concepts that have a lot of social/societal baggage like UFO's (or even areas like Ghosts, Hauntings and the like) it is important that everyone is on the same page as far as definitions and concepts. It helps research and researchers, which is why scientists (or psychologists like myself) spend so long learning the correct terminology, no matter how obscure or verbose, that is used within their chosen field. Yes, I did just use the word verbose. Anyway, good topic Believer101, should generate some healthy debate...



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
From what I have read here, most people that misuse that term are those who throw a one-liner into the thread (mostly "debunkers" or even hardcore deniers. I normally ignore them.

Most people on ats will know the difference but its not a fault to remember to it sometimes.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by RebelWithoutASoul
 


That's exactly my point. When people misuse terms or definitions, others get confused and continue the trend of misusing the term. I believe that's one of the reasons why people don't take those who believe in Aliens seriously; there's so much misuse of the term UFO.

And don't get me started on the misuse of medical terms.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by verschickter
From what I have read here, most people that misuse that term are those who throw a one-liner into the thread (mostly "debunkers" or even hardcore deniers. I normally ignore them.

Most people on ats will know the difference but its not a fault to remember to it sometimes.


While that is true, a lot of the "UFO debunkers" even misuse the term a lot. Now, I am a heavy believer in life elsewhere in the universe, so UFO threads are one of the main places I do my lurking about here on ATS. The misuse of the term has just gotten to a point to where if anyone uses the term UFO here on ATS, people automatically link that with us talking about aliens when in fact, we're talking about something that's unidentified.

I've seen a lot of misuse in the Baltic Sea object threads, where people are calling it a UFO when, in reality, it's a USO (unidentified submerged object).



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Believer101
The term UFO states that it is UNIDENTIFIED. Until it has been identified as a Chinese lantern/military drone/helicopter/plane/etc, it is UNIDENTIFIED. Therefore, it is an Unidentified Flying Object.

No, if you cant tell whether its a plane or a ballon/lantern its just an Unidentified Aerial Object. An Unidentified Flying Object actually *fly*. And the only way to *fly* is by use of powered flight (even birds use muscles). Which implies intelligence. A chinese lantern for example is never a true UFO. Its not flying. Its drifting.

So IMO you are focusing on the wrong keyword.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by Believer101
The term UFO states that it is UNIDENTIFIED. Until it has been identified as a Chinese lantern/military drone/helicopter/plane/etc, it is UNIDENTIFIED. Therefore, it is an Unidentified Flying Object.

No, if you cant tell whether its a plane or a ballon/lantern its just an Unidentified Aerial Object. An Unidentified Flying Object actually *fly*. And the only way to *fly* is by use of powered flight (even birds use muscles). Which implies intelligence. A chinese lantern for example is never a true UFO. Its not flying. Its drifting.

So IMO you are focusing on the wrong keyword.


Then why isn't the term UAO used? If it's moving about the sky, people take that as flying. Kites drift in the wind, but people take that as flying kites. Eagles and other hawk type birds soar through the sky, a lot like kites, yet people equate that with flying.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Believer101
Kites drift in the wind, but people take that as flying kites.

Ah, but they dont drift do they? They have a person controlling them at all times. If you loose a kite, you're not flying a kite anymore. Then it just a piece of cloth that is drifting in the wind.

Same thing with a ballon. If there is no one controlling it, its not flying. Its drifting with the wind. However, if it is a manned ballon then it is flying - there is someone controlling up/down movement.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by merka
 



Your argument is invalid because if you don´t know what it is, you can´t differ if its flying or gliding



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by Believer101
Kites drift in the wind, but people take that as flying kites.

Ah, but they dont drift do they? They have a person controlling them at all times. If you loose a kite, you're not flying a kite anymore. Then it just a piece of cloth that is drifting in the wind.

Same thing with a ballon. If there is no one controlling it, its not flying. Its drifting with the wind. However, if it is a manned ballon then it is flying - there is someone controlling up/down movement.


But, if it's miles away in the sky and people don't know what it is, how do they know whether or not it's drifting or flying? If it's moving about in the sky and people don't know what it is, they assume it's flying, therefore it's a UFO.
If you identify it as a balloon/kite/lantern/etc. then you can determine whether or not it's legitimately flying or just drifting.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by verschickter
Your argument is invalid because if you don´t know what it is, you can´t differ if its flying or gliding

So what you are saying is that what appears to be a ballon drifting at the same speed and direction of the wind at its altitude is the same type of flight as a seemingly metallic object going mach 15 against the wind?



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by Believer101
Kites drift in the wind, but people take that as flying kites.

Ah, but they dont drift do they? They have a person controlling them at all times. If you loose a kite, you're not flying a kite anymore. Then it just a piece of cloth that is drifting in the wind.

Same thing with a ballon. If there is no one controlling it, its not flying. Its drifting with the wind. However, if it is a manned ballon then it is flying - there is someone controlling up/down movement.


You´re just using semantics to try to get your point valid, but it wont do that.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by verschickter
Your argument is invalid because if you don´t know what it is, you can´t differ if its flying or gliding

So what you are saying is that what appears to be a ballon drifting at the same speed and direction of the wind at its altitude is the same type of flight as a seemingly metallic object going mach 15 against the wind?


I did not say any of this!
You are using semantics again, this time based on assumptions.
"What appears" does not make it that.
Its still a UFO when its in the medium AIR and if you can´t identify it as something.
Don´t you get this?
How do you know the object isn´t a slight bit faster then the wind?
See I can do that too.
Disrupt elsewhere please, because now it just gets ridiculous!

edit on 30-6-2012 by verschickter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Believer101
 

Personally, I think that a large majority know exactly what the term actually means, and know that they are misusing it.

It has been misused now for so long, and by so many people (everywhere, not just here), that the 'misuse' of the term, has basically turned into the most common use of the term.

It's just easier that way.






 
 

Originally posted by verschickter

From what I have read here, most people that misuse that term are those who throw a one-liner into the thread (mostly "debunkers" or even hardcore deniers. I normally ignore them.

Was that an attempt at discrediting those whom question the facts, and prefer to use common sense and logical reasoning in order to reach a conclusion, as opposed to the instant acceptance of the blind believer?



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
 
 

Originally posted by verschickter
From what I have read here, most people that misuse that term are those who throw a one-liner into the thread (mostly "debunkers" or even hardcore deniers. I normally ignore them.


Was that an attempt at discrediting those whom question the facts, and prefer to use common sense and logical reasoning in order to reach a conclusion, as opposed to the instant acceptance of the blind believer?


No, that´s just how you want to see it.
One-liners normally do not question facts or use common sense in them. Because one line is just now enough by definition.

I´m not a blind believer if you think that of me. Don´t know how you get to that point.
Kind of funny how someone that defends the word UFO, is then a "blind believer", while the definition of the word UFO is rather neutral.

You can now begin to demonstrate me that a small percentage of one-liners do successful question facts and use common sense but you should know what I mean with it, and you would ridicule yourself doing this.
edit on 30-6-2012 by verschickter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
reply to post by Believer101
 

Personally, I think that a large majority know exactly what the term actually means, and know that they are misusing it.

It has been misused now for so long, and by so many people (everywhere, not just here), that the 'misuse' of the term, has basically turned into the most common use of the term.

It's just easier that way.


I do have to disagree with you there. I think they believe they are using it correctly, but because of the constant misuse of the term they are actually using it incorrectly. As I said previously, because of the misuse, people automatically assume those who mention UFO's are believers in aliens, when most aren't. With that in mind, the definition of UFO is being altered because of the misuse to lead people to believe UFO = alien when it really means an Unidentified Flying Object. That's the whole point behind my thread.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
reply to post by Believer101
 
 

Originally posted by verschickter

From what I have read here, most people that misuse that term are those who throw a one-liner into the thread (mostly "debunkers" or even hardcore deniers. I normally ignore them.

Was that an attempt at discrediting those whom question the facts, and prefer to use common sense and logical reasoning in order to reach a conclusion, as opposed to the instant acceptance of the blind believer?


No, not at all. That wasn't his point in what he said at all. His point, I'm assuming of course, is that the one's who use what I said in my OP ("That's not a UFO") are those who only use one liners and make fun of the OP of the thread. The ones who don't actually do anything to improve the discussion, who are just there to poke fun at people.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Yes, that was exactly what I wanted to say. I don´t get his logic anyways. He says its misused but everyone knows so its ok, in the same breath, he accuses me of "discrediting" those who ask questions. Huh? upside down world????
edit on 30-6-2012 by verschickter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by verschickter
 


He might have been confused as to what you were trying to say. It's easy to misinterpret people, especially on the internet. And he wasn't saying it's okay to misuse the term, he was just stating his opinion that he thinks most know they're using the term wrong and that it's just easier to use it that way instead of properly.

Sort of like how the acronym FTW has changed from the 80's to today. Back in the day, that acronym used to mean F*** The World, but now it's being commonly misused as For The Win. Most just find it easier to use it as for the win instead of the old meaning.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
The first part of this video deals with establishing a useful definition of UFOs based on the definitions employed by notable investigators:



The key difference between, on one hand, the definitions given by Hynek and Haines and, on the other, the meaning of the term as used by people only casually familiar with the subject, is that the former specify only reports that have been investigated to a certain degree. These investigations - from which we derive practically all our useful information on alleged "UFOs" - typically include rather extensive interviewing of witnesses, gathering of information such as weather and astronomical data, and attempts to correlate the stimulus for the report to known (preferably specific) occurrences like balloon launches, documented aircraft flights, or the transit of heavenly bodies or satellites across the sky.

There are plenty of "true" UFO reports of this kind in which the stimulus that led to the making of the report cannot be specifically identified as any known occurrence and does not reasonably fit the description of any known phenomenon in general.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join