A Brief History of the Definition Behind a "UFO".

UFO historian "dute" offers us a brief yet concise history into the matter. The term "UFO", as it's typically understood, is so overused that it's become cliché.

There are three major different meanings for the word "UFO". As originally coined, it was a shortening of a phrase used inside the US intelligence community (primarily Air Force intelligence) to refer to the supposed real world objects behind the reports they were studying. Note that the Air Force categorized the reports they received with such classifications as "hoax", "astronomical", "insufficient information" and "unidentified".

Strictly speaking, it is only the "unidentified" reports that were UFOs originally. The intelligence officers had another word for the reports that were bunk: flying saucer. So as originally understood, a UFO referred to an anomalous report that had been studied and classified as unknown. This definition was specifically endorsed by J. Allen Hynek after he left Project Blue Book. And it makes sense because as a scientist, the interesting reports are the ones that are known to be unidentifiable. If there is a signal, it exists there.

In the mid 50s and early 60s, a new working definition for "UFO" emerged within the Air Force. A UFO became any stimulus that caused someone to file a UFO report (this was an early Hynek definition while he was working with the Air Force). Or, as Carl Sagan would later put in 1963, a UFO is anything that is unidentifiable to the observer.

In the 60s this was adopted as the Air Force definition of a UFO. Note that defined this way, a UFO is a tautological fact. They must exist. But according to this definition, a misidentified Venus is a UFO. This definition contains all of the categories of identification used by intelligence studies: a hoax is just as much a UFO as a true unknown.

A third definition of UFO is "alien spaceship". This is perhaps the most popular definition to this day. Originally it was pushed hard by Donald Keyhoe in the 50s and 60s.

The second and third meanings here are frankly stupid. The second is so vague as to be meaningless, while the third is so specific as to defy epistemic justification. It is only the first definition that is useful if you want to study UFO reports using the scientific method. This is the definition used currently by GEIPAN, the official French UFO/ONVI investigation. They even break it down into "unidentified after investigation" and a more restrictive "unidentified after investigation and odd".

As a historical note, I believe the adoption of the second definition was part of a broader policy decision to close official UFO investigations and decrease interest in the subject. If a UFO is anything that an observer can't identify, then UFO is so broadly defined as to be meaningless.

Source

I offer another interpretation of the term. Paul R. Hill defines a "UFO" as an Unconventional Flying Object. He rephrased it in objection to the broadness of the second definition. This rephrasing implies that the object in question is a physical reality, but not so broad as to doubt what it could represent. In other words, the object is definitely a vehicle capable of traversing space. But it's not necessarily alien, because we don't know who or what operates the ship. Per dute's first definition, Mr. Hill presumably looks at cases which were studied and classified as unknown. This has the benefit of reducing uncertainty when analyzing cases. It helps him build a case for the physical reality of the enigma.

I offer these definitions so we can see that the history of the term is much less intuitive than one may be led to believe. Now this is my opinion...but the idea that "UFOs are anything that's unidentified", is stupid and unnecessary. In fact, it's clichés like that which hold back progress in this field. Debunkers and "skeptics" actually cite that "definition" as a reason to not take the subject seriously. I hope this post was informative. It offers a much needed history lesson.

reply to post by RUInsane

The term "UFO" as literally interpreted is so overused that it's become almost a cliché.

I agree. I like Unknown Flying Object. The one I saw defied the laws of physics and was not man made. I know this because of its characteristics. I had never seen anything man made and flying do that before.

The other acronym I could use is WIT...

The people around me were dumbfounded at what we all witnessed that night. What I remember hearing from some of them over and over during the event was, "What is that?"

reply to post by intrptr


I know of "UAP", which is Unidentified Aerial Phemonenon, but what's "WIT"? Never heard of it. Paul Hill argues that UFOs obey the laws of physics, but are used in unfamiliar ways to us.

RUInsane
reply to post by intrptr

 

I know of "UAP", which is Unidentified Aerial Phemonenon, but what's "WIT"? Never heard of it. Paul Hill argues that UFOs obey the laws of physics, but are used in unfamiliar ways to us.

See my post--- "What Is That?" (WIT)

And indeed an abrupt, angular change of direction at insane speed is not something I have ever witnessed in the physical world before. Thats what I meant by defying physics. But you are right... known laws of physics.

reply to post by intrptr


Ah, I see. WIT = What is that.

I can explain why UFOs seem to defy the laws of physics. That's the key word. The problem is that the majority of humans alive now have grown up during an age which saw the development of advanced jet planes and rocketry. Now, jet planes and rockets make a lot of noise. They're also fast. So when people see a genuine UFO, they tend to describe it in familiar, i.e. aerodynamic/rocketry terms. But the UFOs we talk about aren't reported to make noise.

Why is this?

Quite simply, it's because UFOs aren't aerodynamic. That is, they don't intend to overcome gravity through brute force. Modern rocketry and aerodynamics are based on this concept. Planes use a combination of wings which use vertical lift + propellant (fuel) to achieve sustained flight. But UFOs don't have wings, and they don't have an exhaust. So how do they fly? It's not through aerodynamics. The typical saucer design is counter-intuitive to aerodynamic flight. There's no fixed-wing to deflect oncoming airflow to achieve lift.

There are many reports of cigar-shaped UFOs leaving an exhaust trail...sometimes in close proximity. Of course, it can't be an exhaust trail. If UFOs had an exhaust, their propulsion system would indicate a gaseous exothermic reaction. It would produce noise and heat, and the witness would report intense heat as the object passed by.

The so-called flame-like "exhaust" trail is actually ionized plasma due to the high-energy radiation emitted by the craft as a result of its force field propulsion. UFOs are hypothesized by Mr. Hill to use three different acceleration/force fields.

The three fields propagate at the speed of light and work jointly to propel the craft. Each field tells the incoming air to move aside. Each field-generator is located at a specific section for this purpose, and to enable smooth airflow control. The airflow's kinetic energy is continually absorbed and returned to it as it travels between the fields. The placement of the fields ensures that there's no more kinetic energy available in the local airflow for a pressure rise, so flow is shock-free.

This is what's known as constant potential flow. Shock patterns are caused by uneven flow distribution at supersonic speeds. If airflow is smoothly compressed, there's also no potential for noise, as the air wouldn't slam into the UFO's body surface.

This all to say that UFOs don't produce noise, and can perform abrupt angular turns, because they aren't aerodynamic. I explained a bit about how they work. My information is all taken from Hill's book. I understand it well enough to explain it on my own, though.

reply to post by RUInsane

The problem is that the majority of humans alive now have grown up during an age which saw the development of advanced jet planes and rocketry.

Thats me. I grew up going to multiple airshows with my dad (aerospcae engineer in aerodynamics, reentry vehicles) glued to the space program, study of weaponry. I have seen or witnessed it all, mostly.

Now, jet planes and rockets make a lot of noise. They're also fast. So when people see a genuine UFO, they tend to describe it in familiar, i.e. aerodynamic/rocketry terms. But the UFOs we talk about aren't reported to make noise.

Thats one attribute we witnessed. It approached, raced past us and continued on without_a_sound. Thats part of the "Whats it" response from everyone around me.

But I shall give you my interpretation of part of the phenomenon that I was looking right at for several seconds. The "craft" (a blue light) with no distinguishable features, had a little knot of red at the front and and the back as it went by. This seemed to be separate from the "body" of color that I presumed was the ship itself. This fore and aft redness wasn't a beacon or a part of the object in other words, it was a result of the propulsion or wake of such as it were. Like the air was parting in front of the ship and closing in back. Maybe moving thru space but seperate from it. I would even go so far as to call it a bow shock front and closure at the back.

But I remember trying desperately to identify what I was looking at and focusing on the lights, their color and the method by which it moved so quickly, so silently. I am sure the red lights had something to do with that, but that they were not engines or exhaust from same.

If I was to go way out on a limb, I would theorize that this craft could occupy space and violate time if you will, like a dilation of the "now" a little bit, so that it proceeds itself just a little bit. Same with the direction change. I don't care how "cushioned'" the structure, nothing could have survived the abrupt change of direction at those speeds without desintigrating itself.

Like it "jumped' from "now" (in one direction) to "then" (in another direction), missing the effects of maximum inertia at the point of turning altogether.

These things "jump".

Heres a reported like example of what I am talking about. At 1:09 into here...

And here is something I noticed about the Belgian Wave photo that struck me as lending to time "dilation". Look at the ripples on the light at the right and how steady the center one is in comparison. I believe these are "time ripples" like on water but in "time'" instead. The photo captures the "engines" idling as it were.

expertwitnessradio.org...

Difficult to give these phenomenon terms as it is out of our realm of experience to describe them. But adding what I have observed directly to other eyewitness reports and scant evidence is what keeps me sane.

ETA: It is why I are here.

reply to post by intrptr


Thanks for the interesting response!

The most common thes days
is "OMG"....
Oh My Gawd...

reply to post by RUInsane

N problem, thanks for letting me share on your thread. I am linking another thread someone started about shapes of unknowns. This is a good reference thread for identifying types of crafts. I am pretty sure not all of them are unidentified, but it is a mostly complete list of reported strangeness, be it chinese lanterns or whatever.

I was reading it one day and got taken aback by the drawing of something very similar to what we saw that night. I have not seen that presented anywhere else. Heres my post in that thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...