Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

All of those things have been identified. That's why they don't fall within the definition of "unidentified flying object".

http://www.foia.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070703-004.pdf

From the very next paragraph to the one you quoted:



Why you cited that document as if it upheld your claim that UFO is synonymous with "alien craft" I do not know. You will note, however, that the case under discussion concerns an "areal phenomen[on], airborne object [...] which [is] unknown". Hence a UFO, by definition, according to the source that you provided.

Thanks for the PDF:

Your interpretation that things that are suggestive of aircraft have already been identified and therefore not to be reported as UFOs is not accurate. You will notice, "Air Defense Command is responsible for reports of 'unknown' aircraft, which should not be reported as UFO's under this regulation." and it goes on to outline what that means and that includes the mere possibility of something being an aircraft based on known characteristics associated with aircraft. Obviously a "flying wing" is something assiciated with aircraft, as would be the opinions of airmen who say things like, "I thought it was an aircraft".


The reason that the word UFO is associated with the concept of alien craft goes back to when the objects in question were actually associated with the idea they are probably alien craft by both witnesses and some people within the Air Force, including some of the first people to do the first USAF investigations, particularly those in Project Sign who wrote the initial Estimate of the Situation. The problem is that without solid proof the Air Force wasn't going to start saying there were alien craft visiting Earth, so they had to come up with some seemingly neutral name, and that's when E.J. Ruppelt made the word UFO an official replacement for the phrase "flying saucer" which had come to be popularly interpreted as some kind of alien craft. So since the word UFO is actually just a euphemism for the word "flying saucer" we're really talking about the same idea. The usage of the word UFO then took on a role within official investigations and became associated with UFO reports, at which time that context gave rise to different meanings for the word, specifically the object which is described in a UFO report, which after some intensive screening and investigating may turn out to be a so-called "genuine UFO", again synonymous with flying saucers or alien craft. But again the Air Force had to play down such descriptive phrasing ( see the Robertson Panel for more on that ), so they used the word "unknown" instead, which as I've shown in previous posts through the use of independent dictionary definition, has as a primary synonym the word "alien", and in the context we are speaking it fits perfectly. Note that when I use the word "alien" I do not insist that it be E.T. , but only alien to our current technological capability and/or civilization as we understand it. Adding to all this is that the popular interpretation of the word UFO is of an alien craft, usually a flying saucer, and this is backed up by literally millions of examples on the Internet that reflect a common acceptance of its meaning to imply something alien and not something merely "unidentified". The only place we see the word "unidentified" being called up on its own in support of a position are by skeptics who try to use it out of the context I've just given in order to trivialize it. An argument has been made here that the points I've just made above mean I'm trying to "define UFOS into existence". But I've done no such thing. It's simply a term that defines what we are really talking about without the bureaucratic politically correct restrictions that were imposed on the Air Force. So when we speak of UFOs we all know what we're really discussing and to pretend otherwise is nothing more than willful ignorance of the history and the overwhelming obviousness of the common accepted usage that we are speaking of alien craft, or in the case of a UFO investigation, the object in a UFO report. I hope this helps to clarify.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The relevant question is, what does it mean in the context of the entire acronym and its associated history and usage?

No, the relevant question was, "What does the U in UFO stand for?" Another relevant question is, "With the sufficiency of evidence that you perpetrated the J Randall Murphy VolksUFO ( firefly ) Hoax, do you now admit your complicity?

Simplifying it to a literal removes the context and without context floats it in a manner that isn't accurate with respect to interpretation. Many acronyms work in this manner, but UFO is particularly sticky and requires more than casual usage to understand it properly. 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.

No, that's just your wishful thinking that you can Rredefine UFO ( witch) to mean Alien Space Ship. You weren't allowed to on the Bleever website and you won't be allowed to here. UFO means Unidentified Flying Object ( witch ).

 

[Akhenaten]

Thanks for the PDF:

<self-serving drivel>

I hope this helps to clarify.

What on Earth makes you think that you're in a position to clarify anyone else's understanding of a commonly used word that you've consistently displayed no understanding of yourself, or that posting barely readable Walls o' Waffle™ is the way to do it?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I hope this helps to clarify.

It helps others understand that you are dishonest in trying to Rredefine Alien Space Ships into existence.

With the sufficiency of evidence for the existence of UFOs ( witches ), do you believe they exist, YES or NO? Why do you cowardly dodge the question?

 

[Akhenaten]

It helps others understand that you are dishonest in trying to Rredefine Alien Space Ships into existence.

With the sufficiency of evidence for the existence of UFOs ( witches ), do you believe they exist, YES or NO? Why do you cowardly dodge the question?

I hope you're prepared to be told that your questions are irrelevant.

Apparently 'irrelevant' is yet another word that's been Rredefined and it now means 'too embarrassing for a ufologist to answer' but we must have missed the memo.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Your interpretation that things that are suggestive of aircraft have already been identified and therefore not to be reported as UFOs is not accurate.

It's certainly not accurate that that's what I said, no. You can check what I said, as it's in the post you quoted.

You will notice, "Air Defense Command is responsible for reports of 'unknown' aircraft, which should not be reported as UFO's under this regulation."[...]

Why are you quoting just that sentence, and not the few immediately preceding it? These are the relevant parts you ignored:

Flying objects determined to be aircraft.

[...]

They are readily identifiable as, or known to be, aircraft but their type, purpose, origin and destination are unknown.

This unequivocally confirms what I said earlier, namely that things which have been identified as aircraft don't count as UFOs because they have been identified.

[...]and it goes on to outline what that means and that includes the mere possibility of something being an aircraft based on known characteristics associated with aircraft.

I can't see where the document does this. Please quote it and reference page and paragraph.

The reason that the word UFO is associated with the concept of alien craft goes back to when the objects in question were actually associated with the idea they are probably alien craft by both witnesses and some people within the Air Force, including some of the first people to do the first USAF investigations, particularly those in Project Sign who wrote the initial Estimate of the Situation. The problem is that without solid proof the Air Force wasn't going to start saying there were alien craft visiting Earth, so they had to come up with some seemingly neutral name, and that's when E.J. Ruppelt made the word UFO an official replacement for the phrase "flying saucer" which had come to be popularly interpreted as some kind of alien craft. So since the word UFO is actually just a euphemism for the word "flying saucer" we're really talking about the same idea. The usage of the word UFO then took on a role within official investigations and became associated with UFO reports, at which time that context gave rise to different meanings for the word, specifically the object which is described in a UFO report, which after some intensive screening and investigating may turn out to be a so-called "genuine UFO", again synonymous with flying saucers or alien craft. But again the Air Force had to play down such descriptive phrasing ( see the Robertson Panel for more on that ), so they used the word "unknown" instead, which as I've shown in previous posts through the use of independent dictionary definition, has as a primary synonym the word "alien", and in the context we are speaking it fits perfectly. Note that when I use the word "alien" I do not insist that it be E.T. , but only alien to our current technological capability and/or civilization as we understand it. Adding to all this is that the popular interpretation of the word UFO is of an alien craft, usually a flying saucer, and this is backed up by literally millions of examples on the Internet that reflect a common acceptance of its meaning to imply something alien and not something merely "unidentified". The only place we see the word "unidentified" being called up on its own in support of a position are by skeptics who try to use it out of the context I've just given in order to trivialize it. An argument has been made here that the points I've just made above mean I'm trying to "define UFOS into existence". But I've done no such thing. It's simply a term that defines what we are really talking about without the bureaucratic politically correct restrictions that were imposed on the Air Force. So when we speak of UFOs we all know what we're really discussing and to pretend otherwise is nothing more than willful ignorance of the history and the overwhelming obviousness of the common accepted usage that we are speaking of alien craft, or in the case of a UFO investigation, the object in a UFO report. I hope this helps to clarify.

I'm using the source that you cited. If the source that you cited disagrees with what you believe to be the truth, then why did you cite it?

 

[GeeMack]

What does the 'U' in 'UFO' stand for, ufology?

The relevant question is, what does it mean in the context of the entire acronym and its associated history and usage? Simplifying it to a literal removes the context and without context floats it in a manner that isn't accurate with respect to interpretation. Many acronyms work in this manner, but UFO is particularly sticky and requires more than casual usage to understand it properly. 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. I don't know.

There. Another constructive contribution by a helpful, cooperative skeptic. I fixed the dishonest "ufologese" evasion by translating it into a direct, honest English reply.

And although the answer has been provided, it does seem that communication barrier between English speaking people and "ufologists" is pretty thick, and tends to take many, many reviews before it sinks in, here's the answer for the "ufologists" who can't/won't/don't understand yet: The 'U' in 'UFO' stands for "unidentified". Anyone still not getting it?

 

[GeeMack]

Thanks for the PDF:

Your interpretation that things that are suggestive of aircraft have already been identified and therefore not to be reported as UFOs is not accurate. You will notice, "Air Defense Command is responsible for reports of 'unknown' aircraft, which should not be reported as UFO's under this regulation." and it goes on to outline what that means and that includes the mere possibility of something being an aircraft based on known characteristics associated with aircraft. Obviously a "flying wing" is something assiciated with aircraft, as would be the opinions of airmen who say things like, "I thought it was an aircraft".


The reason that the word UFO is associated with the concept of alien craft goes back to when the objects in question were actually associated with the idea they are probably alien craft by both witnesses and some people within the Air Force, including some of the first people to do the first USAF investigations, particularly those in Project Sign who wrote the initial Estimate of the Situation. The problem is that without solid proof the Air Force wasn't going to start saying there were alien craft visiting Earth, so they had to come up with some seemingly neutral name, and that's when E.J. Ruppelt made the word UFO an official replacement for the phrase "flying saucer" which had come to be popularly interpreted as some kind of alien craft. So since the word UFO is actually just a euphemism for the word "flying saucer" we're really talking about the same idea. The usage of the word UFO then took on a role within official investigations and became associated with UFO reports, at which time that context gave rise to different meanings for the word, specifically the object which is described in a UFO report, which after some intensive screening and investigating may turn out to be a so-called "genuine UFO", again synonymous with flying saucers or alien craft. But again the Air Force had to play down such descriptive phrasing ( see the Robertson Panel for more on that ), so they used the word "unknown" instead, which as I've shown in previous posts through the use of independent dictionary definition, has as a primary synonym the word "alien", and in the context we are speaking it fits perfectly. Note that when I use the word "alien" I do not insist that it be E.T. , but only alien to our current technological capability and/or civilization as we understand it. Adding to all this is that the popular interpretation of the word UFO is of an alien craft, usually a flying saucer, and this is backed up by literally millions of examples on the Internet that reflect a common acceptance of its meaning to imply something alien and not something merely "unidentified". The only place we see the word "unidentified" being called up on its own in support of a position are by skeptics who try to use it out of the context I've just given in order to trivialize it. An argument has been made here that the points I've just made above mean I'm trying to "define UFOS into existence". But I've done no such thing. It's simply a term that defines what we are really talking about without the bureaucratic politically correct restrictions that were imposed on the Air Force. So when we speak of UFOs we all know what we're really discussing and to pretend otherwise is nothing more than willful ignorance of the history and the overwhelming obviousness of the common accepted usage that we are speaking of alien craft, or in the case of a UFO investigation, the object in a UFO report. I hope this helps to clarify. I insist on dishonestly using the term UFO in a manner inconsistent with its most basic meaning, and I refuse to do what reasonable people might do and type "alien craft" when I mean "alien craft.

There. Another constructive contribution. Too bad "ufology" adherents are so insistent on spewing paragraphs of nonsense, justifications, and rationalizations to defend their improper use of terms rather than simply use the terms properly.

 

[ufology]

It's certainly not accurate that that's what I said, no. You can check what I said, as it's in the post you quoted.

Why are you quoting just that sentence, and not the few immediately preceding it? These are the relevant parts you ignored:

This unequivocally confirms what I said earlier, namely that things which have been identified as aircraft don't count as UFOs because they have been identified.

I can't see where the document does this. Please quote it and reference page and paragraph.

I'm using the source that you cited. If the source that you cited disagrees with what you believe to be the truth, then why did you cite it?

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.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It's obvious that the list of such things is meant to get the point across and is not simply limited to those examples

It's obvious that you are dishonestly trying to Rredefine Alien Space Ships into existence. Can't you be honest enough to say Alien Space Ship when you mean Alien Space Ship? I hope that helps clarify but let me know if you don't comprehend.

 

[GeeMack]

What on Earth makes you think that you're in a position to clarify anyone else's understanding of a commonly used word that you've consistently displayed no understanding of yourself, or that posting barely readable Walls o' Waffle™ is the way to do it?

Look out, it's going into VFF mode.

 

[23_Tauri]

.. 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.

Ah yes, we're definitely floating through the Floogyverse now.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

<snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Breach of Rule 0

 

[GeeMack]

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 [...]

Because they are not unidentified. Duh. Remember the constructive contribution I made above where I tried to cooperatively, helpfully instruct you as to your fundamental error in understanding the simple meaning of the term UFO?

Do you need another English lesson? Because we can do that. We are, after all, and before all, helpful cooperative skeptics willing to make a constructive contribution. Or after all your pleading for help and cooperation, are you now going to ungratefully ignore the cooperative help you're receiving?

[* More irrelevant blathering snipped. *]

 

[Akhenaten]

Look out, it's going into VFF mode.

Heh heh. Good times, my friend.

I almost miss her.

 

[Akhenaten]

I wonder how big a Wall o' Waffle™ can I generate by asking ufology what is the abbreviation for 'Unidentified Flying Object'.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Hi guys,

I am attempting to write up the compact lenticular idea for my blog.

I used to spend a lot of time at believer sites, arguing (apparently I even had some long exchanges with Ufology, which I did not remember).

At any rate, I first noticed problems with the Kelly Johnson case (as it is related by UFO believers) a few years ago and brought them to the attention of Paul Kimball the director of the Best Evidence video on one of these boards. Kimball didn't even attempt to argue the facts (which I found reprehensible) but he did post a few responses from UFO zealot, Brad Sparks, the man who did all of the "research" for Best Evidence.

I was wondering if any of you stalwart folks might be willing to review that thread to see if I made any errors and also if there is something I missed in Sparks' evasive replies.

I don't think I am allowed to post links but the thread can be found at theparacast dot com>choose the forums>search for "Kelly Johnson" (that is the name of the thread--it will be about the 5th result in the search).

It's a long one and very unrewarding! You guys may love it!

The other part of my musings on this lenticular idea is in reference to the departure event. What i am wondering is, if the apparent departure was actually caused by the cloud dissipating, is our window of time (1-2 minutes) long enough for this to happen?

I have video that demonstrates the evaporation of a lenticular and suggests apparent motion by getting smaller and smaller but it is time-lapsed and I don't know the actual duration.

Many thanks,

Lance

I took a glance. All I see is Kimball quoting sparks. It is almost as if he never looked at the case (or just glanced at it) and does not understand the details. His response usually is to be "I'll ask Brad" or "Brad says....". Glancing at Sparks comments about the ISS being visible to ground based observers is a bunch of garbage. It is not applicable in this case. The ISS can be seen at great distances in orbit because it reflects sunlight. In this case, the UFO reflected no sunlight.

I have to go and I will get back to you on the rest.

 

[Toke]

I am kind of amazed that mr. ufology can keep going with the redefinition.
A sane/honest person would have gotten to the point by now.

Something around "I really really want to believe in aliens.", and "I make kind of a living on it."

 

[ufology]

Hi guys,

I am attempting to write up the compact lenticular idea for my blog.

Lance

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?

 

[John Albert]

From the USAF definition of UFO:

"Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling or near airports and airways, and other similar phenomena resulting from, or indications of aircraft. These should not be reported under this regulation as they do not fall within the definition of a UFO."

From the report in question:

• "Our attention was drawn to what looked like a large airplane off to our right ( north - west )."
• "My first thought is that it was a large airplane, possibly a C-124."
• "It looked to me like I was flying directly towards, and at about the same elevation as, a very large flying wing airplane."
• It was seen in the vicinity of an airport.

Four major strikes against classifying the object as a UFO according to the USAF definition, a definition by the people who invented the phrase in the first place. And there are plenty more reasons besides that. So let's not get on that merry-go-round again.

But this is not the 1950s and you're not a United States Air Force UFO researcher. Hell, you're Canadian for chrissakes! Why this obsession of yours with my country's military services during my grandfather's generation?

Have I ever told you about a thing called the "Genetic Fallacy"? I'm pretty sure I have.

The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.
The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question. Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy​

Every time you invoke these archaic, superseded definitions for "UFO," you're engaging in a genetic fallacy.

Puddle Duck has already pointed out that the definition you're using was superseded and therefore made obsolete several times over in the followinbg years:

From the '54 version
2. Definitions:
a. Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOB) relates to any airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object.


This is the known

b. Familiar Objects - Include balloons, astronomical bodies, birds, and so forth.

Notice "and so forth" above in b. At the time it was written, the authors thought the definition of 'Familiar Objects' to be satisfactory. BUT, in comes all kind of crap as unknowns and they say to themselves "omg! everybody out there are idiots, we have to expand the definition" So the definition of "known' goes from eight words to……..

The '58 version!
The big change in the title is to drop the B to make the acronym UFO instead of UFOB.

a--Familiar or known objects--Aircraft, birds, balloons , kites, searchlights, and astronomical bodies (meteors, planets, stars)

b--Unknown aircraft--
1--Flying object determined to be aircraft. ( and paraphrased as) This is ADC's problem so don't send thim to us.
2 Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling near airport and airways, and other aircraft phenomena should not be reported as they do not fall within the definition of a UFO
3 Pilotless aircraft and missiles

c--Unidentified Flying abjects--(identical to the '54 definition with a couple of wordsmithing changes)


The '62 versiion
The definitions of 'known' stays the same.

The definition of unknown changes.
The definition of the '58 is
c.- Unidentified Flying Objects- Any airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to known aircraft or missiles, or which does not correspond to definitions in a or b above.
And
The '62 is
b-- Unidentified Flying Objects--Any aerial phenomena, airborne object or objects which are unknown or appear out of the ordinary to the observer because performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features.

Which of these statements is the better organized and is clearer. I vote for the '62 and I would have thought you would also. It no longer restricts the reporter to prove a solid object, which until you have it or some debris from itm can not be proven. Word wise, not much of a change, meaning wise, a large change. The official definition may have changed in '59 but it definitely changed by '62

After that let's look at AFR 80-17. In 1966, the definition changed once more, to something even more concise.
a.- Unidentified Flying Objects. Any aerial phenomenon or object which is unknown or appears out of the ordinary to the observer.
That was the final definition. And the best organized! And the simplest! So you should be using it..

In any case, it doesn't matter. A regulation is the equivalent of a civilian law. If AFR 123-45 has been saying that you do procedure blurble using an equilateral triangle and the new edition of AFR 123-45 comes out and says that procedure blurble will now be done using a right triangle, you do not have the option to continue using an equilateral triangle, no matter how much you enjoy those corners. You CAN'T continue to use the old version.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7549888#post7549888​

Today's definition of "UFO" is completely different from this outdated, superseded definition from over half a century ago. I've also provided you with a litany of definitions to support that point. So your continued misuse of the term is just another example of your stubborn refusal to learn anything beyond all the false information you think you know.