Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Common Misuse of the Term UFO.

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Believer101
 




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.


This is the problem with the term UFO. People think that if something is unidentified it MUST or even might be an alien visitor. I think the term is abused the most by people trying to sell books and documentaries on the subject. People like the guests they have been featuring on ATS live just lately. They write about reports of unidentified objects and then infer that they are aliens. So everyone thinks this must be the case when they see something they cant explain. Then you find at a later date when things do get properly identified as something normal the so called ufo researchers back off from the alien idea saying "well i only said it was a UFO, not an alien visitor" .

This is why so called UFO researchers they use the term UFO in the first place it gives them a way to not loose face when something gets explained.

If something is unidentified its because we are to far away from it to see what it really is. There are a lot of experienced members on ATS that are experts in identifying these objects because they have looked at 1000's of cases. That is how they can say 'its not a UFO' with certainty.




posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Believer101

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

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


I do have to disagree with you there. I think they believe they are using it correctly........

Ok then. Put it to a test. Every single time that you see someone misuse the term, come straight out and tell each one that they are using it incorrectly, and explain why.

You will most likely get a good portion of responses that are along the lines of:
[color=FFBDB3]"Yes, I know what it means, & what the letters actually stand for, BUT............."






 
 
 

Originally posted by Believer101

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.
That's just strange. He can speak for himself.






edit on 6/30/12 by BrokenCircles because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by verschickter
 

Originally posted by verschickter

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.
and why would I want to see that?




 

Originally posted by verschickter

One-liners normally do not question facts or use common sense in them. Because one line is just now enough by definition.
I never see that. The quick one-liners I see are more commonly a blind believers weak attempt at discrediting a debunking, long before anyone has even made an attempt at providing a logical explanation as a possibility.

Such as:
  • "[color=E0DA9F]Just wait, someone will be coming in here soon to tell us all it is just swamp gas."

    OR
  • "[color=E0DA9F]Chinese lanterns mmhmmm. Those things must be flying above every single town on the planet."

    OR
  • "[color=E0DA9F]Yeah, I dare you to try to tell me that this is a weather balloon."
    etc.. etc.. etc.....


    Nobody ever says that crap seriously. It is simply trying to make it seem as if any possible explanation that someone may eventually put forth, is a joke, and nothing more.




     

    Originally posted by verschickter

    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"
    I don't know you.
    I did not label you.
    I asked a question.




     

    Originally posted by verschickter

    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.
    lmao. huh?



  • posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 10:20 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by BrokenCircles
    That's just strange. He can speak for himself.


    And I did
    www.abovetopsecret.com...

    Listen, I will not start a quote war with you.
    If you ask me something out of context (the discrediting), I have to asume that YOU see it that way. Otherwise there would be no point asking me that.

    I suggest you read your full post that was adressed to me and then start to think what you really wanted to say with that.
    My point was -and is- that a UFO is a UFO. The other guy who started arguing about semantics (flying, gliding) said it would be a UAO. I simply said that as long as you don´t know what it is (the U in UFO) you cannot start to argue if its "floating" "gliding" or whatever.

    Because this makes the term UFO obsolete.

    We could differ then between
    U flying O
    U gliding O
    U hovering O
    U drifting O
    ...
    ...
    That was my point and I´m more than curious why the hell you asked my that question and start pick apart what I wrote. If you want to start to argue on semantics too, I have to dissapoint you, my vocab is not that wide.


    About the one-liners:
    Yes, that´s really the one important thing on the whole topic, really

    Of every example you brought, you can switch it to the other meaning.
    How often did I read statements like "its just swamp gas". Even if its meant funny, I like how you nitpick what you need for your arguments
    edit on 30-6-2012 by verschickter because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:24 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by verschickter

    Originally posted by BrokenCircles
    That's just strange. He can speak for himself.


    And I did
    www.abovetopsecret.com...

    Listen, I will not start a quote war with you.
    That's a good choice, on your part. Why would you feel the need to post a link to your reply to me, which I had obviously already read, since I quoted and directly responded to it?




    If you ask me something out of context (the discrediting), I have to asume that YOU see it that way. Otherwise there would be no point asking me that.

    I suggest you read your full post that was adressed to me and then start to think what you really wanted to say with that.

    Assumptions often turn out to be false. My own reasons behind asking any particular question, are completely irrelevant. The question is still a question, regardless of why I asked it.



    Originally posted by verschickter

    About the one-liners:
    Yes, that´s really the one important thing on the whole topic, really

    Of every example you brought, you can switch it to the other meaning.
    How often did I read statements like "its just swamp gas". Even if its meant funny, I like how you nitpick what you need for your arguments
    =
    lol. You can call it 'nitpicking' all you want, but I made a valid point, regarding a particular detail that you initiated.



    posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 09:30 PM
    link   
    It's a bit 'cart before the horse' reasoning here, the only thing that counts is unidentified/unknown. That something unknown may be flying when it is seen does not give it any provenance, but it is when seen, a undentified flying object, and is just that, unless anyone knows better, full stop. Anyone speculating on what it actually is, is fully entitled to, alien or not.

    There are living persons who are unidentified, just as there are deceased, and because of their status could well be considered 'Alien' although probably not in law, unless they become accused of same, blah blah.

    How do you consider say, the Baltic sea anomaly, while considering that the biggest debate is if it is a hoax or not, and the next biggest is if it is a crashed, or downed UFO. It's obviously in its current state a USO, but could also be an erstwhile UFO, or none of those things, UNTIL someone knows better.



    posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 03:37 AM
    link   
    reply to post by BrokenCircles
     


    Did I hurt you with my one-line statement?
    Did you feel adressed?
    Because you defend one-liners so much and over everything.
    I´m normally not the one who points on T&C, but one-liners are not happily seen here, so you´re attempt to defend them is really curious.

    You are telling me its not my business what you´re reasons are when asking a question.
    If I would be a donkey, I could say the same to you.

    You did not asked this as a question either and if I read how you come down on the other poster, who just tried to be helpful (because he knows my grammar is not good?) in resolving the issue, I see why you are here. BTW, he was completely right. Do you wonder about my reaction telling you this is just how you want to see it? Well, you apparently wanted to see it that way, because you wouldn´t have asked this special question then.

    I repeat, THIS IS HOW YOU WANT TO SEE IT.
    I will not reply to you, whatever genius argumentation you have brought up in your head till yet because it´s pointless. I gave you my answer to your question on the first page already.



    edit on 1-7-2012 by verschickter because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 11:19 AM
    link   
    reply to post by verschickter
     


    Originally posted by verschickter

    Did I hurt you with my one-line statement?
    Did you feel adressed?
    Because you defend one-liners so much and over everything.
    I´m normally not the one who points on T&C, but one-liners are not happily seen here, so you´re attempt to defend them is really curious.
    Yup. I'm heartbroken. [color=696969]/EndSarcasm


    You couldn't be any further from the truth. I am not defending them at all. I am saying that you are wrong. Your entire argument regarding this particular subject, revolves around one specific inaccurate point↓.

    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.
    What I am saying, is that this detail↑, is incorrect. Now especially after taking into consideration that you "usually ignore them", it shouldn't be too difficult for you to understand how you came to be wrong about it.




    Originally posted by verschickter

    I will not reply to you, whatever genius argumentation you have brought up in your head till yet because it´s pointless. I gave you my answer to your question on the first page already.
    lol. another good choice on your part, since you have completely avoided my actual point, within each reply.



    posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 11:53 AM
    link   
    reply to post by RebelWithoutASoul
     





    I know some may see this as simply an issue of semantics,



    It IS all about semantics, but there's nothing simple about semantics.


    I know, OP, the lack of distinction irritates me too.
    Perhaps a new term should be introduced: EFO - extraterrestrial flying object.
    Of course it wouldn't be necessarily accurate, but then - from what I've observed - many "UFO" enthusiasts (and disbelievers too) don't really care much about accuracy.
    For those who do, UPEFO would be a better abbreviation: "unidentified, possibly extraterrestrial flying object".
    (Or UFOPE, if that suits people's grammatical preferences better. :-))

    Will it happen?
    I don't think so.






    edit on 1-7-2012 by AdAstra because: (no reason given)
    edit on 1-7-2012 by AdAstra because: (no reason given)
    edit on 1-7-2012 by AdAstra because: (no reason given)
    edit on 1-7-2012 by AdAstra because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 02:05 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by smurfy
    It's a bit 'cart before the horse' reasoning here, the only thing that counts is unidentified/unknown. That something unknown may be flying when it is seen does not give it any provenance, but it is when seen, a undentified flying object, and is just that, unless anyone knows better, full stop. Anyone speculating on what it actually is, is fully entitled to, alien or not.


    Yes, they are entitled to speculate about what the believe it is, but that's not what I'm saying in my OP. I'm saying that the term UFO is constantly misused because people automatically assume when someone uses that word they mean alien, when that isn't entirely true. It just means that they saw or found something in the sky that they can't identify and need help.


    There are living persons who are unidentified, just as there are deceased, and because of their status could well be considered 'Alien' although probably not in law, unless they become accused of same, blah blah.


    I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with the term UFO being misused....



    How do you consider say, the Baltic sea anomaly, while considering that the biggest debate is if it is a hoax or not, and the next biggest is if it is a crashed, or downed UFO. It's obviously in its current state a USO, but could also be an erstwhile UFO, or none of those things, UNTIL someone knows better.


    Yes, at one point it could have been a UFO and crashed into the sea to where it is today, but that's not the point. The point is that people are still calling it a UFO when it's in fact a USO. It's not flying anymore, therefore it cannot be a UFO. It's submerged underwater, which is why it's a USO.



    posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 02:08 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by AdAstra
    I know, OP, the lack of distinction irritates me too.
    Perhaps a new term should be introduced: EFO - extraterrestrial flying object.
    Of course it wouldn't be necessarily accurate, but then - from what I've observed - many "UFO" enthusiasts (and disbelievers too) don't really care much about accuracy.
    For those who do, UPEFO would be a better abbreviation: "unidentified, possibly extraterrestrial flying object".
    (Or UFOPE, if that suits people's grammatical preferences better. :-))

    Will it happen?
    I don't think so.


    That's a good idea, but again, I'm not talking about people using terms for speculation. I'm talking about the fact that the term UFO is misused constantly because people believe UFO's automatically mean of extraterrestrial origin. When talking about the UFO, it's alright to use speculation, however, saying it's not a UFO when it hasn't yet been identified is the problem. It IS a UFO until it has been properly identified as something else, whether that be a balloon, RC plane/helicopter, military drone, etc. That's my point. The misuse of the term.



    posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 02:10 PM
    link   
    reply to post by BrokenCircles
     

    reply to post by verschickter
     


    Alright you two, that's enough. We are not here to discuss each other, we're here to discuss the misuse of the term UFO. If you cannot discuss the topic, I will get a mod in here to handle things.

    Sorry to play mini-mod, but I'm not going to put up with this.



    posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 02:15 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by PhoenixOD
    This is the problem with the term UFO. People think that if something is unidentified it MUST or even might be an alien visitor. I think the term is abused the most by people trying to sell books and documentaries on the subject. People like the guests they have been featuring on ATS live just lately. They write about reports of unidentified objects and then infer that they are aliens. So everyone thinks this must be the case when they see something they cant explain. Then you find at a later date when things do get properly identified as something normal the so called ufo researchers back off from the alien idea saying "well i only said it was a UFO, not an alien visitor" .


    They are allowed to use speculation, that isn't my point. My point is that people automatically assume that if someone says UFO they're a "crazy person who believes in alien" when that just isn't true. It means they saw or found something in the sky that they could not identify. And I'm not talking about people selling books and documentaries, I'm talking about people here on ATS (mainly debunkers) who are misusing the term. Until the object in the picture/video/first-hand story is identified, it is an Unidentified Flying Object (UFO).



    If something is unidentified its because we are to far away from it to see what it really is. There are a lot of experienced members on ATS that are experts in identifying these objects because they have looked at 1000's of cases. That is how they can say 'its not a UFO' with certainty.


    Well, when they can give definitive proof that it is something else (balloon/plane/bird/etc) then it's no longer a UFO. That's not the problem. I encourage that. I do not believe everything that is a UFO is of alien origin and I would like to see it be identified as something else. My problem is when they just come in and scream "Are you crazy, that's not a UFO!!!!" and other things like that without actually helping the OP of the thread to identify the object.



    posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 02:18 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by BrokenCircles
    Ok then. Put it to a test. Every single time that you see someone misuse the term, come straight out and tell each one that they are using it incorrectly, and explain why.

    You will most likely get a good portion of responses that are along the lines of:
    [color=FFBDB3]"Yes, I know what it means, & what the letters actually stand for, BUT............."


    Again, that's not the point. Let's just agree to disagree.


    That's just strange. He can speak for himself.


    Don't get snippy because I helped him better explain what he was trying to say. Yeah, he can speak for himself, but that does not mean that I cannot help deter the misunderstanding. There's no law against helping someone explain something.



    posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 02:28 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Believer101
     


    ok mommy, but just to be clear, that is exactly what I have been discussing. Stating how his argument on this particular topic is based upon inaccurate details.





    Originally posted by Believer101

    Again, that's not the point. Let's just agree to disagree.
    What? That is the entire point!

    You say that people don't realize that they're misusing the term. I think that many do realize it, but just don't care, because it is easier for them.






    Originally posted by Believer101

    Don't get snippy because I helped him better explain what he was trying to say. Yeah, he can speak for himself, but that does not mean that I cannot help deter the misunderstanding. There's no law against helping someone explain something.
    I wasn't getting "snippy". I didn't even read it all.

    I stopped reading here↓

    Originally posted by Believer101

    No, not at all. That wasn't his point in what he said at all. His point, I'm assuming of course.....
    I wasn't interested in reading your assumed translation of what you think he may have meant.





    P.S. "There's no law against it"??
    lmao.
    I remember way back when I was a wee lad in kindergarten, there was a kid that always said that.




    edit on 7/1/12 by BrokenCircles because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 02:40 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Believer101
     




    but again, I'm not talking about people using terms for speculation. I'm talking about the fact that the term UFO is misused constantly because people believe UFO's automatically mean of extraterrestrial origin.



    That's what I meant too. (And that's what irritates me.)
    Sorry I didn't explain myself better.



    posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 03:24 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by AdAstra
    reply to post by Believer101
     




    but again, I'm not talking about people using terms for speculation. I'm talking about the fact that the term UFO is misused constantly because people believe UFO's automatically mean of extraterrestrial origin.



    That's what I meant too. (And that's what irritates me.)
    Sorry I didn't explain myself better.



    Hey don't worry about it! Misunderstandings happen. I'm just glad we're on the same page.



    posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 06:26 AM
    link   
    Agreed with OP. More than 100%. UFO doesn't mean alien, nor does it even mean aircraft or swamp gas.

    However, this is what has been consciously or not implanted in people's minds. The thing is, people do make shortcuts, and usually the laziest and simplest ones.

    I suggest we would start using another name for those : UAP - Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon.
    edit on 2-7-2012 by SpookyVince because: I can.



    posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 12:15 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by SpookyVince
    Agreed with OP. More than 100%. UFO doesn't mean alien, nor does it even mean aircraft or swamp gas.

    However, this is what has been consciously or not implanted in people's minds. The thing is, people do make shortcuts, and usually the laziest and simplest ones.

    I suggest we would start using another name for those : UAP - Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon.
    edit on 2-7-2012 by SpookyVince because: I can.


    Exactly. Heck, even a bug can be a UFO until it is identified as a bug.

    That's a good idea, but I bet people would still equate that with aliens. :/



    posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:20 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Believer101
     


    I often see this arguement: UFO = Unidentified Flying Object and therefore does not equate to extraterrestrial craft. My question is how is it that one could reconcile this same arguement when the same extraterrestrial crafts in Asia are referred to as Friendly Dragons? Are people in Asia also readily arguing that there is no way the craft is extraterrestrial in origin when it is clearly a Friendly Dragon?






    top topics



     
    2
    << 1   >>

    log in

    join