• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

ufology said:
Lance,

I don't reject the possibility of the incident being explained as a cloud, and I look forward to your writeup, but would you also consider mentioning that the possibility of an aircraft also fits with a number of bits of information, and that not all ufologists consider the incident to be substantially indicative of an alien craft?
Click to expand...


I rather got the idea that Lance was hoping that his piece would be taken seriously.

Perhaps there's a spoof site out there somewhere that might be interested in your comedy ideas. This site for instance, looks like they'll publish any old thing. Why not get in touch with them?
 
Using Genetic Fallacy as an argument against my position on the meaning of the word UFO is faulty. My position takes all factual historical contexts into account up to the present day, not merely one specific definition. Furthermore the concept of Genetic Fallacy does not apply to everything that is simply old. Many things that were defined a long time ago have exactly the same definitions and meanings now and are perfectly valid. Additionally, my position actually contradicts any suggestion of Genetic Fallacy in that I have proposed that we accept an updated definition of UFO based on all the information provided in the historical context and the modern usage, which overwhelmingly shows as evidenced by literally millions of Internet search results, that the primary thing that people think of when they use and/or hear the word "UFO" is an alien craft, usually a flying saucer. So on every count ... every logical reason based on independent evidence, the word UFO is used to convey the idea that we are dealing with the topic of an alien craft.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
The part you mention, "Flying objects determined to be aircraft." is the general introduction to 1(2) ... In other words it's saying not to report objects determined to be aircraft and then goes on to explain what that means within the context of the definition of UFO, and that includes such things that merely suggest that the object seen is an aircraft, and gives examples like lights circling near airports, jet exhausts, blinking lights and so on. It's obvious that the list of such things is meant to get the point across and is not simply limited to those examples, and in the Mugu incident we have a number of factors including the object being described as some kind of aircraft in the vicinity of an airport, along with other indications such as possible exhaust. I hope that helps clarify.
Click to expand...

No, you are wrong. There are three sections under the heading "a. familiar or known objects". Subsection 1) gives a list of flying objects, subsection 2) specifies aircraft themselves, and subsection 3) specifies other things which may be indicative or emanating from aircraft. 3) is separate to 2), although they are related.

And, once more, this all supports what I have said, namely that aircraft are not classed as UFOs because they have been identified as aircraft. It does not support your assertion that the term is used to denote alien craft, and the definition of the term in the document you cited contradicts your claim:

Unidentified Flying Objects. Any arial phenomena, airborne object or objects which are unknown or appear out of the ordinary to the observer because of performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features.
Click to expand...

This description perfectly matches the object in the Kelly Johnson case.
 
Akhenaten said:
I rather got the idea that Lance was hoping that his piece would be taken seriously.

Perhaps there's a spoof site out there somewhere that might be interested in your comedy ideas. This site for instance, looks like they'll publish any old thing. Why not get in touch with them?
Click to expand...

That sounds like just the site that would publish mr. ufology's ideas.
Most helpful of you.
 
John Albert said:
Every time you invoke these archaic, superseded definitions for "UFO," you're engaging in a genetic fallacy.
Click to expand...

I'm hardly an expert on the subject, but a quick trawl through Wikipedia suggests that the term "UFO" was applied by E.J. Ruppelt to replace "flying saucer" and "flying disk" because those terms were too loaded. So, far from ufology's suggestion that this is evidence that the term means "alien craft", it indicates that it was brought in because the previous vernacular was too suggestive of alien craft.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
No, you are wrong. There are three sections under the heading "a. familiar or known objects". Subsection 1) gives a list of flying objects, subsection 2) specifies aircraft themselves, and subsection 3) specifies other things which may be indicative or emanating from aircraft. 3) is separate to 2), although they are related.

And, once more, this all supports what I have said, namely that aircraft are not classed as UFOs because they have been identified as aircraft. It does not support your assertion that the term is used to denote alien craft, and the definition of the term in the document you cited contradicts your claim:

This description perfectly matches the object in the Kelly Johnson case.
Click to expand...


Again ... the part you quoted as being relevant is the introduction to ... 1(2) "Flying objects determined to be aircraft." The part that goes on to explain the indications of aircraft that do not fall under the definition of UFO are in 1(3) as I've already stated, and is what I made my original reference to, and which fits the reasons not to class the Mugu Point object as a UFO ... yet again ... because it ( to parphrase ) "looked like a flying wing aircraft" and other air crew say they thought it was an aircraft when they first noticed it ... it was in the vicinity ( almost directly over an airstrip ) ... and there was a mention of thinking it might be jet exhaust.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I'm hardly an expert on the subject, but a quick trawl through Wikipedia suggests that the term "UFO" was applied by E.J. Ruppelt to replace "flying saucer" and "flying disk" because those terms were too loaded. So, far from ufology's suggestion that this is evidence that the term means "alien craft", it indicates that it was brought in because the previous vernacular was too suggestive of alien craft.
Click to expand...


Are you aware that 'alien' has a meaning in Ufologese that differs significantly from its meaning in English?
 
ufology said:
An unrelated example is BDD ( Business Desktop Deployment ). Without the context that it is used by Microsoft, we could just as easily think we are talking about office furniture.
Click to expand...
Here's another unrelated example (though why we're down to using "unrelated" examples is beyond me, but it's too good an opportunity to miss)

CIA

Without the context of knowing the person is in Cardiff and is a member of the Innkeepers Association we may incorrectly conclude that they were actually part of one of the US intelligence agencies.

That'll be why the actual initials of an acronym are very very important to know the context of what is being referred to by using the acronym.

Therefore if you are looking into reports of Alien Space Ships, you should use the acronym ASS and if you are looking into reports of Unidentified Flying Objects, you'd use the acronym, UFO.

Glad to be of help.
 
ufology said:
Again ... the part you quoted as being relevant is the introduction to ... 1(2) "Flying objects determined to be aircraft."
Click to expand...

There is no "1(2)". You're referring to 1. a. 2).

The part that goes on to explain the indications of aircraft that do not fall under the definition of UFO
Click to expand...

Everything in section 1. a. does not fall under the definition of "UFO". Section 1. a. describes "familiar or known objects". Because "UFO" stands for "unidentified flying object". If something is identified, it is not unidentified, and therefore does not fall under the definition of "UFO". This is made even more explicit in section 1. b. which defines the term.

Again, this is the document you cited, and it flat-out contradicts what you claim to be the definition.

[...]and which fits the reasons not to class the Mugu Point object as a UFO ... yet again ... because it ( to parphrase ) "looked like a flying wing aircraft" and other air crew say they thought it was an aircraft when they first noticed it ... it was in the vicinity ( almost directly over an airstrip ) ... and there was a mention of thinking it might be jet exhaust.
Click to expand...

The conclusion of the official investigation was not to class it as a UFO because it was identified to the military's satisfaction as a cloud. Had they concluded that it was not to be classed as a UFO because it was an aircraft, then the report would reflect that.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I'm hardly an expert on the subject, but a quick trawl through Wikipedia suggests that the term "UFO" was applied by E.J. Ruppelt to replace "flying saucer" and "flying disk" because those terms were too loaded. So, far from ufology's suggestion that this is evidence that the term means "alien craft", it indicates that it was brought in because the previous vernacular was too suggestive of alien craft.
Click to expand...


Exactly,

You are now getting the point. Flying saucers were ( and still are ) by most dictionary definitions a reference to alien craft, usually extraterrestrial. The Air Force and CIA didn't want that "loaded" language used, especially after Project Sign initially concluded that some flying saucers probably were extraterrestrial. So the politically correct euphemism UFO was inserted instead, allowing them to say that objects that seem to be alien craft are only "unidentified" when in fact some of them were quite clearly believed by many people, for good but unprovable reasons, to be craft of alien origin. Then the various official definitions were put in place to rule out as many known natural and man-made objects as possible during the UFO report screening process, so that in the end, they would only have those reports that they were really interested in, which were those that seemed to indicate extraterrestrial origin ... but of course that was still too "loaded" so they called them "unknowns". It's so completely obvious to anyone who looks at the historical records that no reasonable case can be made against it. Does this prove UFOs exist? No. But it's interesting to ufologists all the same.

Note: I've traced Ruppelt's creation of the word UFO all the way back through the NARA archives and studied how and why it came into being along with the various contexts all the way up to the present day. So I know what I'm talking about. These allegations that I'm trying to "define UFOs into existence" are simply flames on the thread.
 
Last edited:
Stray Cat said:
Here's another unrelated example (though why we're down to using "unrelated" examples is beyond me, but it's too good an opportunity to miss)

CIA

Without the context of knowing the person is in Cardiff and is a member of the Innkeepers Association we may incorrectly conclude that they were actually part of one of the US intelligence agencies.

That'll be why the actual initials of an acronym are very very important to know the context of what is being referred to by using the acronym.

Therefore if you are looking into reports of Alien Space Ships, you should use the acronym ASS and if you are looking into reports of Unidentified Flying Objects, you'd use the acronym, UFO.

Glad to be of help.
Click to expand...


icon14.gif
The Uruguayan Society of Accredited Foresters likes this.​
 
ufology said:
It's so completely obvious to anyone who looks at the historical records that no reasonable case can be made against it.
Click to expand...

Please provide links and cites of page and paragraph numbers for the relevant parts of these "historical records" which prove that the term "UFO" was applied to these cases in order to submit reports about alien craft without directly referring to them as such.
 
ufology said:
<blather>

So I know what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...


And it bothers you not one jot or tittle that nobody else does.


ufology said:
These allegations that I'm trying to "define UFOs into existence" are simply flames on the thread.
Click to expand...


quod erat demonstrandum

WTH does flames on the thread mean?


And while we're at it, what's the correct abbreviation for 'Unidentified Flying Object'?
 
ufology said:
Again ... the part you quoted as being relevant is the introduction to ... 1(2) "Flying objects determined to be aircraft." The part that goes on to explain the indications of aircraft that do not fall under the definition of UFO are in 1(3) as I've already stated, and is what I made my original reference to, and which fits the reasons not to class the Mugu Point object as a UFO ... yet again ... because it ( to parphrase ) "looked like a flying wing aircraft" and other air crew say they thought it was an aircraft when they first noticed it ... it was in the vicinity ( almost directly over an airstrip ) ... and there was a mention of thinking it might be jet exhaust.
Click to expand...


That is a good example of dishonest cherry picking. Is that how you intended it? Because you couldn't have rationally intended that to be a defense of your conclusion that it was a flying wing or other aircraft.

Oh, and your continued ignorance of this hasn't gone unnoticed... What was that abbreviation for the term "unidentified flying object"?
 
Akhenaten said:
It hasn't been determined to be an aircraft, ufology.

You know this.
Click to expand...


Your comment also misses the proper context. Positive identification of the object in question as an aircraft is not required under Section A- General, 1.a.(3) of AFR 200-2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom