• 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.

Time to junk the term "UFO"?

Gawdzilla said:
I propose we use the NYIO instead of UFO. "Not Yet Identified Objects" is more accurate, I believe.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

Even if we come up with plausible explanations for a sighting, such as a blimp.
And even if practically everyone agrees that the most likely thing seen was a blimp.

All we can say is that the most likely explanation is that it was a blimp.

Without evidence, though, it is still unidentified, and indeed, unidentifiable, since you will never be able to recreate a sighting.

UFO covers this nicely, whereas "Not Yet", would need to also cover, "Not Likely To", and "Not Ever" as well.
 
EHocking said:
I disagree.

Even if we come up with plausible explanations for a sighting, such as a blimp.
And even if practically everyone agrees that the most likely thing seen was a blimp.

All we can say is that the most likely explanation is that it was a blimp.

Without evidence, though, it is still unidentified, and indeed, unidentifiable, since you will never be able to recreate a sighting.

UFO covers this nicely, whereas "Not Yet", would need to also cover, "Not Likely To", and "Not Ever" as well.
Click to expand...
I think it makes it clear that the possibility of being identified is there. As the Believers routinely use UFO for "alien spacecraft" I think this is a means of countering that euphemism.
 
Gawdzilla said:
I think it makes it clear that the possibility of being identified is there. As the Believers routinely use UFO for "alien spacecraft" I think this is a means of countering that euphemism.
Click to expand...
My argument is that "Unidentified" covers all tense of the acronym; past, present and future.

So a much more useful, universal, concise and precise acronym is still UFO.

ETA: IFO, being the its "antonym".
 
Last edited:
Whether the phenomenon was correctly identified or not is a judgement call. Just call it a "thing".

Declaring that an unidentified thing is flying (when it might very well be a planet) is an unjustified assumption. All you can say for sure is that it's up in the sky.

So I say we should replace Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) with Thing In The Sky (TITS). The new acronym might encourage a whole new generation of dedicated spotters.
 
Last edited:
Gawdzilla said:
I just looking to make it more explicit.
Click to expand...
The problem I have is that "Not Yet", besides implying that it can/will be identified, is more implicit than explicit, since it would exclude all sightings that can not, or may never be, be identified.
 
Gawdzilla said:
I propose we use the NYIO instead of UFO. "Not Yet Identified Objects" is more accurate, I believe. We could also use IBIASFO?
Click to expand...
UFO works fine for objects that are unidentified, we really just need to add another term for the creduloids that are really talking about aliens, UFAO has worked well in some of the threads.
 
What is wrong with UAO, i.e. "Unspecific Aerial Object" Or should be Non-specific", in which case, NAO

By taking out unidentified, it still allows for later confirmed identification, without saying that it is actually likely to be identified, and Aerial takes out "Flying" indicating intelligent control.
 
Last edited:
Explorer said:
What is wrong with UAO, i.e. "Unspecific Aerial Object" Or should be Non-specific", in which case, NAO

By taking out unidentified, it still allows for later confirmed identification, without saying that it is actually likely to be identified, and Aerial takes out "Flying" indicating intelligent control.
Click to expand...
And once identified, what would and UAO or NAO become?

What is the difference between using UFO and IFO in this context?
 
While I agree mostly with EHocking on his points, I think this is a useful discussion to have.

I do deplore the use of the acronym 'UFO' as a synonym for 'alien craft', but I do not think the problem is serious enough to really worry about.

For the sake of discussion, here is my take:

'Unidentified' works well enough. It is accurate, and does not ommit the possibility of later identification.

'Flying' is an assumption. Things may be located in the sky, without actually having the power of flight.

'Object' is another assumption. People may percieve things visually that are not actuual objects.

If we were going to change the acronym, I think something like 'Unidentified Visual sighting' would be more accurate. It does not assume that the veiwer is witnessing a particular type of thing with any specific properties. Lacking any assumption, it distances itself from 'alien craft' by a wider margin.

U.V.S. anyone?
 
caniswalensis said:
While I agree mostly with EHocking on his points, I think this is a useful discussion to have.

I do deplore the use of the acronym 'UFO' as a synonym for 'alien craft', but I do not think the problem is serious enough to really worry about.
Click to expand...
I'm in agreement with both the above - that's why I'm participating in the chat.
For the sake of discussion, here is my take:

'Unidentified' works well enough. It is accurate, and does not ommit the possibility of later identification.

'Flying' is an assumption. Things may be located in the sky, without actually having the power of flight.

'Object' is another assumption. People may percieve things visually that are not actuual objects.

If we were going to change the acronym, I think something like 'Unidentified Visual sighting' would be more accurate.
Click to expand...
But rather redundant, don't you think? A "visual" "sighting"?

In order to not seem to be a nay-saying meanyhead

Unidentified Aerial Sighting?
UAS pronounced "You Arse" (or "You Ass" for our USAan friends).
 
EHocking said:
I'm in agreement with both the above - that's why I'm participating in the chat.But rather redundant, don't you think? A "visual" "sighting"?

In order to not seem to be a nay-saying meanyhead

Unidentified Aerial Sighting?
UAS pronounced "You Arse" (or "You Ass" for our USAan friends).
Click to expand...

You are right, that's is a bit redundant. What about 'Unidentified Visual Experience', a UVE? Or perhaps better, 'Unexplained Visual Experience'? The use of the word experience creates even more distance between the reported sighting and an assumption of reality.

Your suggestion of UAS is very good too. It is perfectly descriptive without making assumptions. I personally dislike the ‘you ass’ pronunciation, though. It will be used to mock people that see & report something they do not understand. I see no need for that.

At the end of the day, 'UVE' may not be descriptive enough.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom