Can anyone help me identify any trends you might see in these definitions?
Paul,
If you want to settle for such poor results just to suit your bias then all your doing is proving your lack of standards. And I don't believe you for a second that you didn't cherry pick your results to suit your bias. When your type "define UFO" into google the
first result is this:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ufo
UFO [yoo-ef-oh or, sometimes, yoo-foh] noun, plural UFO's, UFOs.
any unexplained moving objectobserved in the sky,
especially one assumed by some observers to be of extraterrestrial origin.
============================
When you go to a reputable actual definition like The Oxford Online Dictionary you get this:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/UFO
UFO(UFO) noun (plural UFOs)
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.
Origin:
1950s: acronym from unidentified flying object.
============================
When you look at virtually every depiction of a UFO you see something resembling an alien craft. Furthermore verybody knows that when someone uses the word UFO they are referring to an alien craft. Even if explicit references to alien craft have been omitted from the definition, at the very least a UFO is understood to be something extraordinary and unexplainable in conventional terms. Your willful ignornace of this fact in the face of overwhelming obvious evidence betrays your bias.
And of course I've left out official & investigative definitions like:
CUFOS:
"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."
or USAF
“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.”
or USAF
2. Definitions. To insure proper and uniform usage in UFO screenings, investigations, and reportings, the objects are defined as follows:
a.Familiar or Known Objects - Aircraft, birds, balloons, kites, searchlights, and astronomical bodies (meteors, planets, stars).
b.Unknown Aircraft:
(1) Flying objects determined to be aircraft. These generally appear as a result of ADIZ violations and often prompt the UFO reports submitted by the general public. They are readily identifiable as, or known to be, aircraft, but their type, purpose, origin, and destination are unknown. Air Defense Command is responsible for reports of "unknown" aircraft and they should not be reported as UFO's under this regulation.
(2) 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.
(3) Pilotless aircraft and missiles.
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. and b. above.
=========================
And there are plenty more definitions out there ... real ones ... not like the ones you picked that aren't even real definitions. But I don't expect that you'd want to use them because the critics here are notorious for purposefully leaving out relevant information and in doing so are lying by omission and misrepresenting the field.
Lastly, I still have no useful information from any skeptics here on Clark McClelland. But perhaps skeptic Lance will dig something up. At least he's provided some useful information in the past. Or maybe the SUNlite people or CSI ( formerly CSICOP ). But the JREF people here seem to do nothing but ufology bash and spread anti ufology propoganda.
Surely he could do better? Couldn't he work up some of those advanced alien technologies that he gleaned whilst working at NASA and flog them on: 
