UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[R.A.F.]

Got any evidence for aliens visiting planet Earth to share with us?

That's the bottom line here...he has no evidence, so he must "create" a situation where he doesn't need evidence...as in re-defining the term "UFO".

 

[RoboTimbo]

ufology, let's see where this particular bit of your lying started. You are the one who introduced Oxford's definition:

[*]Oxford Dictionary:
UFO: a mysterious object seen in the sky for which it is claimed no orthodox scientific explanation can be found, often supposed to be a vehicle carrying extraterrestrials.

There is no cherry picking at all here ... only the truth that you refuse to accept.

Which was particularly funny considering that I then looked up and posted the Oxford online dictionary's full definition.

Here's the Oxford online dictionary defintion I found:

noun (plural UFOs)
a mysterious object seen in the sky for which, it is claimed, no orthodox scientific explanation can be found.

Origin: 1950s: acronym from unidentified flying object

Showing where you had left out the part about unidentified flying object.

Perhaps you should just give up not only the redefintion fallacy but also the lying about other people.

 

[ufology]

So why all this instance on your favoured definition? What does it bring to efforts at understanding the subject at hand?

That is a very good question. I've covered that in previous posts, but I'll offer it briefly here again for your convenience.

When people are discussing a particular topic, especially one that is complex, there is an accepted lexicon unique to that topic that helps to delineate the various meanings of words within the context of the discussion. For example the word "sharp" in music, the word "erosion" in geology, or the word "universe" in cosmology. The word universe is a particularly good example because it means different things in theology, cosmology, astronomy and philosophy.

Ufology is no different and because the main topic is UFOs, it important to have an in-context understanding of the word in order to advance a meaningful and consistent discussion, which to directly address your point, is a key component of the effort to understand the phenomenon.

Misuing the word, as skeptics often do, in their attempts to marginalize it, in no way helps us advance our understanding of the topic. Furthermore it misrepresents the true nature of the topic to the public, and that is intellectually disingenouous. Such tactics should not be part of exploring the truth, but unfortunately are a part of the "us vs. them" adversarial attitude that goes on here, and which I defend against.

 

[AdMan]

Just to be clear, although ufology has called oxforddictionaries.com the mosted respected independent dictionary on the planet," I think he mistakenly thinks he is referring to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), online at oed.com. That one requires a paid subscription in order to search, but I'm certain the definition for UFO in it is not as short as what he has quoted.

Here's a sample entry from the OED:

mammoth

And from oxforddictionaries.com:

mammoth

ETA: The point being that it's a mistake to somehow give more validity to a definition from oxforddictionaries.com, versus one from dictionary.com, for example.

 

[ufology]

Lord I'm getting tired of this crap...

If you're getting tired ... go lay down.

 

[Toke]

That is a very good question. I've covered that in previous posts, but I'll offer it briefly here again for your convenience.

When people are discussing a particular topic, especially one that is complex, there is an accepted lexicon unique to that topic that helps to delineate the various meanings of words within the context of the discussion. For example the word "sharp" in music, the word "erosion" in geology, or the word "universe" in cosmology. The word universe is a particularly good example because it means different things in theology, cosmology, astronomy and philosophy.

Ufology is no different and because the main topic is UFOs, it important to have an in-context understanding of the word in order to advance a meaningful and consistent discussion, which to directly address your point, is a key component of the effort to understand the phenomenon.

Misuing the word, as skeptics often do, in their attempts to marginalize it, in no way helps us advance our understanding of the topic. Furthermore it misrepresents the true nature of the topic to the public, and that is intellectually disingenouous. Such tactics should not be part of exploring the truth, but unfortunately are a part of the "us vs. them" adversarial attitude that goes on here, and which I defend against.

Yes, we have kind of figured out that you wish to shift the discussion from unidentified flying object to unidentified flying saucers, thereby getting the little green, or possible blue, men included by default.

How would you personally say it is going on a scale from "not convincing anybody" to "creating actual hostility" ?

 

[RoboTimbo]

That is a very good question. I've covered that in previous posts, but I'll offer it briefly here again for your convenience.

When people are discussing a particular topic, especially one that is complex, there is an accepted lexicon unique to that topic that helps to delineate the various meanings of words within the context of the discussion. For example the word "sharp" in music, the word "erosion" in geology, or the word "universe" in cosmology. The word universe is a particularly good example because it means different things in theology, cosmology, astronomy and philosophy.

Ufology is no different and because the main topic is UFOs, it important to have an in-context understanding of the word in order to advance a meaningful and consistent discussion, which to directly address your point, is a key component of the effort to understand the phenomenon.

Misuing the word, as skeptics often do, in their attempts to marginalize it, in no way helps us advance our understanding of the topic. Furthermore it misrepresents the true nature of the topic to the public, and that is intellectually disingenouous. Such tactics should not be part of exploring the truth, but unfortunately are a part of the "us vs. them" adversarial attitude that goes on here, and which I defend against.

If you mean flying saucer, why don't you just say flying saucer? On this forum, UFO means Unidentified Flying Object because this forum is devoted to critical thinking. In your pseudoscientific club, you can pretend it means anything you want to. That won't work here.

So, do you have any evidence for alien flying saucers? It will have to be something compelling. Obviously, we won't be able to take your word for it so a link would be appreciated.

 

[Sideroxylon]

That is a very good question. I've covered that in previous posts, but I'll offer it briefly here again for your convenience.

When people are discussing a particular topic, especially one that is complex, there is an accepted lexicon unique to that topic that helps to delineate the various meanings of words within the context of the discussion. For example the word "sharp" in music, the word "erosion" in geology, or the word "universe" in cosmology. The word universe is a particularly good example because it means different things in theology, cosmology, astronomy and philosophy.

Ufology is no different and because the main topic is UFOs, it important to have an in-context understanding of the word in order to advance a meaningful and consistent discussion, which to directly address your point, is a key component of the effort to understand the phenomenon.

Misuing the word, as skeptics often do, in their attempts to marginalize it, in no way helps us advance our understanding of the topic. Furthermore it misrepresents the true nature of the topic to the public, and that is intellectually disingenouous. Such tactics should not be part of exploring the truth, but unfortunately are a part of the "us vs. them" adversarial attitude that goes on here, and which I defend against.

"The begging of wisdom is calling things by their right name" - Confucius.

You have simply told me why definitions are important, something I already have some appreciation of, hence the question. You have not told me why your definition is important. Again, what does using your favoured definition offer us in understanding the topic at hand? How is it better than those offered by others in this thread?

 

[23_Tauri]

I hope my fellow posters don't consider me flippant for posting this, but I think we are in need of a short, on-topic, comedic interlude on the subject of demotic Anglo-Saxon:



I post this to illustrate the importance of using plain English, that is the English over which there is a general consensus, in order to be understood.

 

[R.A.F.]

If you're getting tired ... go lay down.

Good argument...for someone who has no argument.

Thanks for being blatantly obvious in your "dodge".

 

[R.A.F.]

Misuing the word, as skeptics often do...

Bullcrap...flying saucer lunatics are the only ones "mis-using" the term UFO...you just don't have the courage to admit that.

Why are there so many intellectual cowards on this board??

 

[R.A.F.]

...in no way helps us advance our understanding of the topic.

What, exactly is there to understand??

There is no credible evidence that the Earth has now (or ever) been visited by aliens, period.

If you have evidence to the contrary, now is the time to present it.

 

[Spektator]

Just to be clear, although ufology has called oxforddictionaries.com the mosted respected independent dictionary on the planet," I think he mistakenly thinks he is referring to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), online at oed.com. That one requires a paid subscription in order to search, but I'm certain the definition for UFO in it is not as short as what he has quoted.
(snip)

I have a paper copy of the OED and the third supplement. The definition for UFO is in the supplement:

UFO: orig. U.S. Also U.F.O. [Acronym.] An unidentified flying object: a 'flying saucer.' 1953 D.E. Keyhoe in Air Line Pilot Oct. 9/3. The UFO was estimated to be between 12,000 and 20,000 feet above the jets. 1956 E.J. Ruppelt Rep. Unidentified Flying Objects 13. UFO is the official term that I created to replace the words 'flying saucers.'

I have omitted the pronunciation guide to UFO and the remainder of the usage citations, which go into the 1970s. The quotation marks are from the OED entry.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

When people are discussing a particular topic, especially one that is complex, there is an accepted lexicon unique to that topic that helps to delineate the various meanings of words within the context of the discussion. For example the word "sharp" in music, the word "erosion" in geology, or the word "universe" in cosmology. The word universe is a particularly good example because it means different things in theology, cosmology, astronomy and philosophy.

No problem with of this.

Misuing the word, as skeptics often do, in their attempts to marginalize it, in no way helps us advance our understanding of the topic. Furthermore it misrepresents the true nature of the topic to the public, and that is intellectually disingenouous. Such tactics should not be part of exploring the truth, but unfortunately are a part of the "us vs. them" adversarial attitude that goes on here, and which I defend against.

Obviously we see the opposite side of this. We think the UFO believers misuse the word, and do so for precisely the reason you say is a bad thing: it misrepresents the true nature of these things. You want to make people think by default that all UFOs are most likely to be alien spacecraft, and we think that is misrepresentation.

 

[John Albert]

Ufology, would you mind explaining to us the logic of how you manage the jump from:

The word UFO is meant to convey an object that defies known explanations.

...to the statement that:

UFOs, by definition, are not mundane.

Just because nobody has been able to positively identify them, that doesn't indicate they are non-mundane. Do you really not understand the cognitive error behind that jump to conclusion?

...some definitions even include the presumption of an alien craft as part of the definition.

A "presumption" does not make a fact.

The definition's use of the word "presumption" plainly indicates that such a conclusion is presumptuous by nature, and therefore not to be trusted.

In other words, just because a UFO believer presumes UFOs are alien spacecraft, that doesn't make their presumption factually correct.

UFOs are objects seen in the sky which have not been identified. That is the definition. Sure, there may be connotations of extraterrestrials, but that's beside the point.

 

[ufology]

"The begging of wisdom is calling things by their right name" - Confucius.

You have simply told me why definitions are important, something I already have some appreciation of, hence the question. You have not told me why your definition is important. Again, what does using your favoured definition offer us in understanding the topic at hand? How is it better than those offered by others in this thread?

Sideroxylon:

To be clear, the definitions I've used to illustrate my position are not my definitions. My own proposed definition is located here:

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


The other definitions I've used, that you correctly refer to as my "favoured definition" not simply a reference to any one definition, but to several definitions and circumstances that together are historically and factually accurate. Together they are overwhelmingly supportive of the idea that UFOs as historically defined and commonly understood are not mundane objects. This offers us a better understanding of the topic because it clears up the ambiguity.

So when we are talking about a UFO, we are not talking about some twinkling light in the distance. Such a light could be a star or an aircraft on approach. However if the light suddenly darts back and forth many miles across the sky pulling maneuvers that no natural or manmade object we know about can do, then it becomes a UFO.

The reason that the skeptics don't like to accept the above is because one of their tactics is to portray UFOs as simply anything based on the literal interpretation of the words that make up the acronym. This muddies the debate and gives them maneuvering room. If they are not called on it right away they'll do it almost every time.

The tactic is masterfully acted out in a video posted way back there someplace that initiated this part of the debate. Here it is again: "Don't forget what the "U" stands for in "unidentified" ... bla bla bla"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfAzaDyae-k

It's a complete misrepresentation, and when one is aware of it, one can see right through it. Tyson does deserve some kind of acting award for it though because he must be aware of what he's doing, and I wouldn't be surprized if the person who asked the question was an audience plant, or at least knew the response he would get from past performances.

Unfortunately in this forum we have sympathizers of such tactics and when called on it, they immediately respond with the hand waving. Then when that fails, they start the accusations, name calling and mockery. It's getting all quite predictable.

I grant it that some good information has been forwarded here though, and for that I'm appreciative. I just wish I could get it without having to walk through barbed wire every time.

 

[Sideroxylon]

So when we are talking about a UFO, we are not talking about some twinkling light in the distance. Such a light could be a star or an aircraft on approach. However if the light suddenly darts back and forth many miles across the sky pulling maneuvers that no natural or manmade object we know about can do, then it becomes a UFO.

There are at least a couple of unjustified assumptions that you are making here. Firstly, that the observer is actually witnessing a physical object and not say reflected light. The second assumption being made here is that the "object" is indeed moving at the speeds perceived by the observer, when they may simply be much closer and smaller than thought.

 

[Akhenaten]

Akhenaten

The point I'm, trying to make, as I'm sure actually realize, is not that I'm trying to "define flying saucers into existence", but to establish a common understanding of the word "UFO" . . .

We already have a common understanding of the acronym UFO. That you choose to subscribe to a different understanding and thereby cast virtually all of your various claims in the light of special pleading is your problem and yours alone.

. . . and how it has different meanings in different contexts, and is not simply defined or understood as the literal meaning of the individual words that make up the initialism.

quod erat demonstrandum

This is special pleading, ufology. Since you're now doing it in just about every post you make have you considered the expedient of adding it to your signature?

BTW: That was a very funny comment about shoe boxes.

You only think that because you have no idea what I was actually talking about.

 

[ufology]

There are at least a couple of unjustified assumptions that you are making here. Firstly, that the observer is actually witnessing a physical object and not say reflected light. The second assumption being made here is that the "object" is indeed moving at the speeds perceived by the observer, when they may simply be much closer and smaller than thought.

Sideroxylon,

The example I used was for illustration and your comment helps to illuminate why it is so important to get these details nailed down.

The point that is still not getting through is that it isn't necessary that the object you see be proven to be something extraordinary, only that it seems extraordinary enough to be called a UFO by the observer. So if you are fooled by some rare optical illusion that makes you believe you are looking at something extraordinary, then saying, "I see a UFO", is perfectly legitimate. However if you are just looking at some distant light, then it's not proper usage.

To give you a bit more info in support of this position, the late astronomer J. Allen Hynek defined a UFO this way:

"The reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon the land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible."

You may be aware of who Hynek was. If not then you can check out this link:

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


Returning to your original comment. You are still absolutely right about the possibility of misperceptions and other things that may explain a particular UFO report. However at least by defining the word in a specific manner, we have separated UFOs from every random object or light seen in the sky that is simply "unidentified".

It's like separating out the various vehicles and driving perceptions on the highway. There are all kinds of them and when someone says, "Stop for the school bus!", you know they aren't talking about a volvo station wagon. It doesn't matter if the School bus turns out to be a billboard with a picture of a bus on it. The idea was still communicated effectively.

 

[Akhenaten]

ehcks:

You're missing the point. If you ask what the letters in the word UFO stand for, you would be right, however if you ask what the word UFO means ... how it is defined, the words that make up the initialism are not the same as the meaning of the word as a whole, and your definition above is simply not accurate.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this nonsense, ufology, it's never going to be true.

The word "UFO" was created by USAF officials to replace the phrase "flying saucers" which were thought by the public ( and some USAF people ) to be alien craft. In addition to that, the official USAF definitions were much more involved and have been quoted in past posts under various USAF Regulations.

UFO is not a word, it's an acronym

We are not in the USAF.

It's 2011.


So simple these things are. So unable to grasp them he is.

In addition to the above, the worlds most established English dictionary ( Oxford ) does not define the word UFO as merely the three words that it originates from, nor do several other independent quality sources. In addition to that, the scientific expert who studied UFOs for decades, and who was pasrt of the official USAF investigations did not define UFOs so simply.

Lastly, UFOs have become deeply embedded in modern culture and the overwhelming imagery and usage all the way from comic books to television is that UFOs are some kind of alien craft.

If you wish to try and press your claims, whatever they be, in the language of comic books and television shows then go right ahead, but don't bleat when people refuse to take you as seerwiously as you'd like.

Virtually everyone, when they hear someone talking about UFOs visualizes something non-mundane ( usually a flying saucer ).

Twaddle.

Sources that do not take all these factors into account and defiine it as merely the words that make up the initialism are neither official, historically accurate or representative of what UFOs are commonly thought to be in modern culture.

You can either prattle on endlessly about being the only one here using the correct definition for UFOs or you can cut to the chase and just present the evidence that some of them, however they're defined, are in fact alien flying saucers. Your obsession with the former stongly suggests that you lack the latter.

The skeptics here of course deny all the facts above, make self-serving proclaimations, refer to the incomplete literal defintions from non-official sources, or cite only impartial sections of the official definitions, and then when shown to be error they make up poor excuses to dismiss the official definitions altogether, definitions that were created by the people who created the word in the first place, citing them as "out of date".

Quite a rant, but:

• 
  As a group, the skeptics you wish to rail against (despite a fervid wish to be counted among them) do not have a 'self' to be served. This attempt to turn a phrase (that you read in one of my posts) back on your opponents is, like all your other attempts to do so, an abject failure.
  
  
• It's 'proclamations', not 'proclaimations'.
  
  
• Your reference to "non-official sources" is baloney.
  
  
• Accusing the skeptics of citing "only impartial sections of the official definitions" is almost defintely not what you wanted to do.
  
  
• Replacing "superseded" with "out of date" is yet one more example of the willy-nilly redefinition of words which is at the heart of the objections that people are currently raising in respect of your arguments. It's looking increasingly like this is in fact your only tactic when caught short of evidence and it's getting really tired.

Then when shown to be in error through modern language definitons from the most respected independent contemporary sources, they just start the hand waving, name calling and mockery. I anticipate more of that coming soon.

Your penchant for dropping out of conversational mode and adopting the rôle of narrator for your invisible friend is quite amusing, but it's really not a good look in terms demonstrating a willingness to actually debate the issues.

I realise that the issue in this case is only a dead horse, but still . . .