• 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.

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
ufology said:
The poster above refuses to accept that the definition of the word UFO by the people who created the word in the first place is not a "redefinition" but an actual part of USAF Air Force Regulation 200-2 Feb 05 1958 and was used for officially screening UFO reports. This stubborn behavior to accept a well documented and proven fact only demonstrates how deeply engrained the skeptical bias is.
Click to expand...

Ufology, your references to AFR 200-2 have always been to the '58 version. I'm wondering why you picked that one. Most of the UFON sites are using the '54 version. The only difference that I can see in the definition section of page 1 is the fact that prior to '58, the acronym was UFOB where in the '58 version it changed to UFO, better fitting the common definition.

I couldn't find the '59 version, so I don't know what it looked liked, but the version AFR 200-2(20Jul1962) was the last version of the reg. and so should be the one to be used. Actually, to be proper, AFR 80-17(19Sep1966) should be the one to be used as it superseded 200-2. However, the wording changed in the '62 version to include "any aerial phenomena", so that change would not sit very well for the sites that are pushing the nuts & bolts ET philosophy.

Regulations and Manuals, once published, get feed back from the field and after enough have accumulated, a new version is published. In the meantime, interim changes are published as a letter-suffix to the title of the reg. I'm guessing that in this case, people in the field were complaining that the original wording was too restrictive.


The '54 version AFR 200-2(12Aug1954) http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Air_Force_Regulation_200-2
Pertinent sectiin Para - A,2,a

The '58 version AFR 200-2(05Feb1958) http://www.nicap.org/directives/afr200-2_020558.pdf
Pertinent section Para - A,2,c

The '62 version AFR 200-2(20Jul1962) http://www.foia.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070703-004.pdf
Pertinent sectiin Para - A,1,b

The '66 version of AFR 80-17(19Sep1966) http://rr0.org/org/us/dod/af/afr80-17.htm
Pertinent section Para - A,1,a
 
ufology said:
When it comes to tracing the word UFO, I've dug into the microfilm archives to find the first instances in both the full phrasing and the initialism, then traced its evolution into the Project Blue Book investigations which culminated in AFR 200-2 Feb 05, 1958. These things provide historical evidence for the menaing of the word UFO in the context of ufology studies.
Click to expand...


Good for you.

Now if only you'd direct the same level of diligence at educating yourself in the practices of critical analysis and informal logic, we'd all be a lot better off.

In these discussions, ufology, you often make a particular point of evoking "context." Similarly, the point we've all been trying to make is one of context.

This is not the year 1958, and as far as I know, none of us are engaged in the official study of UFOlogy on commission from the United States Air Force under Project Blue Book. Such a situation is an example of a particular context.

Here's another, quite different context. The current year is 2011. February 5, 1958 was over 53½ years ago. Project Blue Book no longer exists.

Within our current context, the Cold War-era acronym "UFO" has long since entered the popular lexicon, and everybody understands exactly what one means when one invokes the term "UFO." There's simply no need, nor any justification to revert back to some archaic, disused military designation. Consequently, the "official" Project Blue Book definition is an irrelevant anachronism in the context of our current discussion.

As others have already pointed out, using that definition not only confuses matters, but it opens up a lexical gap which would require the creation of some new term to describe any unrecognized objects a person might see up in the sky (unidentified flying objects, natch), which are precisely the phenomenon the term "UFO" was originally coined to represent.

So, to avoid all that utter and complete nonsense, we're going with the standard definition of "UFO," the one literally represented by the words designated in the acronym itself.

UFO == "Unidentified Flying Object"

Period.

Any further attempts at changing this very obvious definition will be regarded as a dishonest attempt to obfuscate literal meaning through the logical fallacy of redefinition.
 
Last edited:
RoboTimbo said:
The above poster is very discerning in who's opinion she seeks out.
Click to expand...


I offer the above poster my humblest apologies for the inconsiderate nature of my previous example, and the assurance that I hold his opinion in the highest possible regard.
 
Akhenaten said:
Which bit of "This isn't the USAF Department of Flying Saucers in 1958, it's an internet forum in 2011" is giving you the most trouble?
Click to expand...


To illustrate further, the word "star" can have several different meanings, from a generic "point of light in the night sky" ( Encarta ) to a person of celebrity status, but in the field of astronomy the word "star" has a very specific meaning, an official definition by astronomers for use in the context of astronomy.

Furthermore it is perfectly acceptable for poeple who study things to define their own words, as astronomers have for the word "star" or geologists have for the word "erosion" or musicians have for the word "sharp" or artists have for the word "medium", and many such words date back farther than the word UFO.

So there is no legitimate criticism for ufologists using official definitions of the word UFO when discussing UFOs, and it is a misrepresentation to use incorrect terminology when presenting the word UFO to the public. It would be like me saying, "A star is just a point of light in the night sky ( Encarta ) ... so it could be almost anything with a light on it like a balloon or an airplane".

However I don't do that to astronomers or anyone else because I choose to respect people who work within their field. So please show the same courtesy here.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
Furthermore it is perfectly acceptable for poeple who study things to define their own words, courtesy here.
Click to expand...
How many terms or words do your "studies" require unique definitions for?

So far: UFO, anecdote, claim, evidence, psuedo, skeptic . . . it's begining to sound like the Tower of Babel around here.
 
ufology said:
However I don't do that to astronomers or anyone else because I choose to respect people who work within their field. So please show the same courtesy here.
Click to expand...

so youre claiming to be a professional ufologist now then ?
can you tell us all about your scientific qualifications for the job.
 
ufology said:
To illustrate further, the word "star" can have several different meanings, from a generic "point of light in the night sky" ( Encarta ) to a person of celebrity status, but in the field of astronomy the word "star" has a very specific meaning, an official definition by astronomers for use in the context of astronomy.

Furthermore it is perfectly acceptable for poeple who study things to define their own words, as astronomers have for the word "star" or geologists have for the word "erosion" or musicians have for the word "sharp" or artists have for the word "medium", and many such words date back farther than the word UFO.

So there is no legitimate criticism for ufologists using official definitions of the word UFO when discussing UFOs, and it is a misrepresentation to use incorrect terminology when presenting the word UFO to the public. It would be like me saying, "A star is just a point of light in the night sky ( Encarta ) ... so it could be almost anything with a light on it like a balloon or an airplane".

However I don't do that to astronomers or anyone else because I choose to respect people who work within their field. So please show the same courtesy here.
Click to expand...

Fail-Poster-Above.jpg
 
EHocking said:
What was the point of these links?

The quoted definitions WERE from these pages on your website.
The point of my post, fer FSM's sake.
:faint:

Oh, and your site does not speak for "we ufologists" - it is one man's opinion only.
Click to expand...


The point of the links was to a quick reference.

As stated above, it is perfectly legitimate to make references to those in a certain field for information about that field ... e.g. If you want to know something about cooking ask a chef. If you want to know something about trees, ask an arborist. If you want to know something about geology, ask a geologist. It isn't reasonable to call such referencing biased, especially when the information itself is factual rather than speculative and/or used in the specific context of the field of study. So the rationale that because the links point to my site, the information isn't valid, has no basis in logic or reason. Every field has its lexicon ... its jargon, and ufology is no different. What better place to get it than from a ufologist?
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
For all the claims that you all here are so well informed about ufology, how is it that you miss the basics? Here is your reference:

http://ufopages.com/Reference/BK/TRUFO/BD_001-002.htm

The Report On Unidentified Flying Objects - E.J. Ruppelt.

"I know the full story about flying saucers and I know that it has never before been told because I organized and was chief of the Air Force's Project Blue Book, the special project set up to investigate and analyze unidentified flying object, or UFO, reports. ( UFO is the official term that I created to replace the words " flying saucers." ).

You can read a more in depth account of the Etymology here:

http://ufopages.com/Reference/BD/UFO-01a.htm

Lastly, I kindly ask again that you stop with the personal slights. I am not a pseudoscientist. Nor am I a scientist. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Just posting my $.02 because when I logged I was informed that I had not posted in several weeks and asked to do so (or answer a few questons).

First, I skimmed the links included in your post, and saw that the definition of "flying saucers" is based on a myth to begin with, which would seem to screw the pooch from word one.
Arnold never said he saw any flying saucers. If anything the objects he described seemed to look more like a YB-49 than anything saucer shaped. He was misquoted in a newspaper account, and afterward the term not only stuck, but people were reporting seeing "saucer shaped craft all over the place as soon as the article started to spread.

Secondly, an unidentified flying object is just that: something that is observed flying through the air, but is not identifiable as a convential aircraft by the observer. This happens every day, and does not mean anything other than the observer was not familiar with the object he saw.
In the early 80's people around Groom Lake saw numerous UFO's and often even described them as "saucer shaped". It was , of course, the B1 bomber, which was an unknown aircraft at the time, and when viewed head on from a distance could easily be mistaken ( by anyone who believed in flying saucers) as "saucer shaped".

As a retired investigator (of the more conventional variety), I am struck by the amount of weight given to visual observation (eye witness reports), which are by far the least credible sources of information given any investigation, and by the absolute lack of any physical evidence that would corroborate said "sightings". Everyone has seen Elvis, but not so much as a crust of a fried peanut butter and banana sandwich has turned up yet.
 
ufology said:
The point of the links was to a quick reference.

As stated above, it is perfectly legitimate to make references to those in a certain field for information about that field ... e.g. If you want to know something about cooking ask a chef. If you want to know something about trees, ask an arborist. If you want to know something about geology, ask a geologist.
Click to expand...

thanks, but if I want to know something about an unidentified object I am unlikely to ask someone with no skillset whatsoever who thinks it could be an alien spaceship. I would ask a meteorologist, or an astronomer,
:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
As stated above, it is perfectly legitimate to make references to those in a certain field for information about that field ... e.g. If you want to know something about cooking ask a chef. If you want to know something about trees, ask an arborist. If you want to know something about geology, ask a geologist. It isn't reasonable to call such referencing biased, especially when the information itself is factual rather than speculative and/or used in the specific context of the field of study. So the rationale that because the links point to my site, the information isn't valid, has no basis in logic or reason. Every field has its lexicon ... its jargon, and ufology is no different. What better place than to get it than from a ufologist?
Click to expand...
When I want to find out what words/phrases mean, I consult a dictionary, not the USAF or UFOlogists.
 
Chuck Guiteau said:
Just posting my $.02 because when I logged I was informed that I had not posted in several weeks and asked to do so (or answer a few questons).

First, I skimmed the links included in your post, and saw that the definition of "flying saucers" is based on a myth to begin with, which would seem to screw the pooch from word one.
Arnold never said he saw any flying saucers. If anything the objects he described seemed to look more like a YB-49 than anything saucer shaped. He was misquoted in a newspaper account, and afterward the term not only stuck, but people were reporting seeing "saucer shaped craft all over the place as soon as the article started to spread.

Secondly, an unidentified flying object is just that: something that is observed flying through the air, but is not identifiable as a convential aircraft by the observer. This happens every day, and does not mean anything other than the observer was not familiar with the object he saw.
In the early 80's people around Groom Lake saw numerous UFO's and often even described them as "saucer shaped". It was , of course, the B1 bomber, which was an unknown aircraft at the time, and when viewed head on from a distance could easily be mistaken ( by anyone who believed in flying saucers) as "saucer shaped".

As a retired investigator (of the more conventional variety), I am struck by the amount of weight given to visual observation (eye witness reports), which are by far the least credible sources of information given any investigation, and by the absolute lack of any physical evidence that would corroborate said "sightings". Everyone has seen Elvis, but not so much as a crust of a fried peanut butter and banana sandwich has turned up yet.
Click to expand...


Again the person above ignores the official definitions and defers to casual out of context usage as if it's valid. It's not. It's a misrepresentation.

He does however note the shape of the B1 Bomber, a picture of which I posted earlier in response to the claims that the ambiguous object in the USI emblem could not be just such an object.

Lastly Arnold wasn't really misquoted, so much as misinterpreted after the newspapers created the headlines. He did describe the object as as being like "saucers skipping across the water", and he is also quoted, as the poster suggests, that he thought they were more crescent shaped than circular. But he also made other statements to the effect they were like two pie plates inverted. And still other quotes use the term "saucer". The picture that arnold is often see holding, was not drawn by him, but by someone else and he just held it for a photo shoot.
 
Last edited:
RoboTimbo said:
ufology, would you agree with Puddle Duck that the old definition has been superceded and is no longer valid?
Click to expand...


Even the superceeded definion, if you sift through it, still amounts to the same thing. It's just been made more accomodating to certain politics at the time that were trying to downplay ufos. But if you read on you'll see for example:
a. Activities receiving initial reports of aerial objects and phenomena will screen the information to determine if the report concerns a valid UFO as defined in paragraph 1a. reports not falling within that definition do not require further action. 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.
​
Since the superceded versions still amount one way or another to the same thing as the better organized definition in AFR 200-2 Feb 05, 1958, that is the one I refer people to.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom