• 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"?

With he acronym "UFO," the word "unidentified" is not the problem.

Calling them "not yet identified" implies that they will be identified at some point in the future, which is not necessarily true. If there isn't enough information about a given object at the time of the sighting and enough cannot be uncovered within a few days or weeks immediately afterward, then there will probably never be enough to make a reliable identification.

If anything, the words "flying object" should be replaced because a large number of UFOs have turned out not to be flying, nor even objects in a material sense. "Aerial sighting" works rather better in my opinion.
 
STINK: Something Tangible, Identity Not Known.

(But I too still like TITS: Thing In The Sky)

:D
 
Last edited:
But then you run into the problem of people saying things like:

"OMG I saw a TITS!"

Nobody talks like that. It just sounds stupid.

The only way TITS would really work is in the plural:

"OMG! I saw some TITS!"
 
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.
Click to expand...
I agree the term "flying" is inaccurate and has probably led to all kinds of crazy misconceptions.
 
EHocking said:
And once identified, what would and UAO or NAO become?

What is the difference between using UFO and IFO in this context?
Click to expand...

Once identified, it would become an SAO, i.e. a Specific or Specified Aerial Object.

See my original post, for the advantages of this terminology..
 
John Albert said:
But then you run into the problem of people saying things like:

"OMG I saw a TITS!"

Nobody talks like that. It just sounds stupid.

The only way TITS would really work is in the plural:

"OMG! I saw some TITS!"
Click to expand...

<Cop> Can you explain what you're doing here at this time with those binoculars, sir?
<UFO nut> Yes, officer, I was hoping to spot some... Uh, I was just looking for... Umm. No. Actually, no, I can't.
 
The only problem I see with UFO is that the U is mostly redundant. You could just as easily leave it out. In most cases, simply describing something as a "flying object" instead of a UFO would work just as well, while at the same time removing any hint of the mysterious that the word "unidentified" evokes.

But as Jack by the hedge points out, just because it's in the sky doesn't mean it's flying. It could be in space, like a planet or satellite. It could be floating, like a blimp. It could be falling like a skydiver. All we know is that it's not on the ground.

I suggest we replace UFO with NTO; "Non-Terrestrial Object".

The only problem is, some people might confuse Non-Terrestrial with Extra-Terrestrial.
 
Last edited:
Well this all well and good, but even if a consensus could be reached in this thread as to a new acronym, how would it be introduced to the public at large? While UFO may not be accurate in all circumstances, it has 100% public awareness.
 
Jungle Jim said:
Well this all well and good, but even if a consensus could be reached in this thread as to a new acronym, how would it be introduced to the public at large? While UFO may not be accurate in all circumstances, it has 100% public awareness.
Click to expand...

That's the real beauty of having an acronym which is a puerile joke. You only need to get it used in an episode of South Park and the internet will do the job for you.
 
the british ministry of defense always used the term UAP. Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon.

This is much better than UFO because the words "flying" indicate some form of propulsion and "object" implies something solid. Which is not always the case e.g light reflections & ball lighting.

Ufologists won't like UAP they much prefer UFO because it leads their target audience down a certain path of thinking. UFO is now a substitute for "alien spaceship" in the minds of believers.
 
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...
I disagree. How about just ignoring the idiots that try to ascribe some other connotation to "UFO" other than "unidentified".
 
Gawdzilla said:
Currently Unknown. The "non-terrestrial" is not proven.
Click to expand...

Surely if it's in the sky, it's non terrestrial? (no hyphen) And it might be known, but not classified. I suppose Not terrestrial works better.

Currently Unclassified, Not Terrestrial.

That's what I'm using from now on.

As in: "Look at those couple of ***** up there!"
 
Last edited:
Malfie Henpox said:
Surely if it's in the sky, it's non terrestrial? (no hyphen) And it might be known, but not classified. I suppose Not terrestrial works better.

Currently Unclassified, Not Terrestrial.

That's what I'm using from now on.

As in: "Look at those couple of ***** up there!"
Click to expand...

I'd go with Currently Unclassified, Aerial. But the "not terrestrial" is just going to feed the lunatics. And that is something I'm trying to get away from.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
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.
Click to expand...
Then we'd have

Things In The Sky
and
Alien Space Ships*

*see UFOs The Research, The Evidence thread for the origin of ASSes.
 
In my opinion, there's no need for a change. Let the nuts have their "U-F-O"
I, as a skeptic simply say the whole term - Unidentified Flying Object. That clearly states the "object" is unidentified. It's not perfect (we don't know if it was actually an object and so on) but it works. I like UAP too.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom