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.
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.
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........
That's just strange. He can speak for himself.
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.
and why would I want to see that?
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.
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.
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 don't know you.
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"
lmao. huh?
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.
Originally posted by BrokenCircles
That's just strange. He can speak for himself.
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?
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.
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.
lol. You can call it 'nitpicking' all you want, but I made a valid point, regarding a particular detail that you initiated.
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 =
Yup. I'm heartbroken. [color=696969]/EndSarcasm
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.
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
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.
lol. another good choice on your part, since you have completely avoided my actual point, within each reply.
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.
I know some may see this as simply an issue of semantics,
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.
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.
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.
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" .
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.
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............."
That's just strange. He can speak for himself.
What? That is the entire point!
Originally posted by Believer101
Again, that's not the point. Let's just agree to disagree.
I wasn't getting "snippy". I didn't even read it all.
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 interested in reading your assumed translation of what you think he may have meant.
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.....
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.
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.
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.