UFOS: the Research, the Evidence.

[Rramjet]

Ruppelt stated:

“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.")” (http://www.ufopages.com/Reference/BK/TRUFO/Reframe.htm?TRUFO-CH01~FS_005-006.htm p.1)​

And

"Obviously the term "flying saucer" is misleading when applied to objects of every conceivable shape and performance. For this reason the military prefers the more general, if less colorful, name: unidentified flying objects. UFO (pronounced Yoo-foe ) for short." (http://www.ufopages.com/Reference/BK/TRUFO/Reframe.htm?TRUFO-CH01~FS_005-006.htm p.6)​

I stated:

The term UFO is not “meant to convey an alien craft” at all. Ruppelt primarily coined the term “UFO” because (as your own quote above indicates) the term “flying saucer” was considered to be misleading as the phenomenon obviously manifested in forms other than the “flying saucer” shape.​

I beg to differ. Ruppelt also says that there were believers in the extraterrestrial hypothesis and that Project Sign's Estimate of The Situation concluded UFOs are alien craft. ( NOTE: I use the phrase "alien craft" synonymously with E.T. or any other hypothesis for objects which cannot be explained as natural or manmade objects or phenomena. ) Sign's estimate was specifically E.T.

Just because people may believe UFO to be synonymous with ET, does not mean that UFOs can (or should) be defined as ET spacecraft. Please answer the following questions ufology:

Many people believe UFOs to be synonymous with misidentified mundane object (MMO) – does that mean we accept the definition: A UFO is a misidentified mundane object?

Many people believe UFOs to be synonymous with alien craft – does that mean we accept the definition: A UFO is an alien craft?

Many people believe UFOs to be synonymous with psychological problems – does that mean we accept the definition: A UFO is a manifestation of psychological problems?

Surely you can see that we cannot simply define UFO on the basis of what people believe to be true – especially when many UFOs have been definitively identified (proved to be) “misidentified mundane objects” and also some as a result of “psychological problems”, whereas the ET hypothesis has no such proof. Surely, in the terms you are speaking of, then those other things have a definitive claim that is much stronger than that of ET…

However there are still two usage issues being confused here with respect to the definition. First there is the usage that refers to UFOs themselves as defined objects, and the other usage that refers to UFO reports. Simply because someone submits a UFO report doesn't mean the object in the report was a UFO. In UFO reports, the word is only meant to convey what kind of report it is.

I can see where you are coming from ufology. A UFO report is submitted. Research is conducted. The object is then either identified (mundane object, hoax, etc) or it is not (and because we do not have an explanation – no identification has been determined - it is properly designated as a UFO).

You want to say that UFOs must be alien craft. But that is not necessarily so. They may still be the result of an undiscovered natural phenomena, secret “black” technology, a manifestation of Jungian collective unconscious etc. - or even a hoax or a misidentified mundane object!). Just because we may have a UFO report where, after investigation, the object has not been identified, does not mean that we can by definition claim that the UFO in the report is an alien craft. There are simply too many alternatives still open to us. A UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now if you believe that some UFOs can be identified as alien craft, you will have to say which cases (UFO reports) fit that identification (and provide the evidence that it is an ET craft). Moreover, if you want to be able to generalise outside the specific cases you may point to (as identified as alien craft), then you will have to provide a set of definitive characteristics, a set of definitive criteria, that will allow us to identify alien craft among the many UFO reports that have objects that remain unidentified. Can you do that?

For example, an aeroplane can be defined as “ a powered flying vehicle with fixed wings and a weight greater than that of the air it displaces.” or “[/I] a vehicle designed for air travel, which has wings and one or more engines[/I]” or “ a machine that has wings and an engine and that flies through the air” or “ an aircraft with wings and at least one engine” etc.

The point being that an object is defined by its characteristics – in this case (generally) heavier than air, fixed wings and at least one engine.

For example Apple: “ the round fruit of a tree of the rose family, which typically has thin green or red skin and crisp flesh.” or Book: “ a written or printed work consisting of pages glued or sewn together along one side and bound in covers” or Pig: “ an omnivorous domesticated hoofed mammal with sparse bristly hair and a flat snout for rooting in the soil, kept for its meat.”, etc… in each case it is the object’s characteristics which define it and it is the characteristics that allow us to distinguish one object from another (…an apple cannot be a pig because it does not have hooves). A UFO cannot be defined as an ET craft because a UFO is not identified. By definition - it has no definitive characteristics whatsoever.

Now you may ask: What about the physics defying manoeuvres? I would then ask whether you sure that natural phenomena – such as plasmas – cannot be observed to display such manoeuvres? Therefore is “physics defying manoeuvres” really definitive of ET craft? In and of themselves, they are not. You will need a number of characteristics, which in conjunction, define the object in such a way that it could not be anything else other than what it is. Some UFOs might possibly be ET craft, but others most certainly will not be.

As for the assumption that the word UFO was not created as a designation for alien craft, simply because that has never been stated outright doesn't mean it cannot be established as true.

But we know why the term “UFO” was created by Ruppelt. It was simply because “flying saucer” was considered by him to be too misleading a term. It was not created as some sort of code of ET craft!

First of all, it is painfully obvious that the USAF did not want to arouse more public interest in alien craft than the phrase "flying saucer" had already been doing, and for which the word UFO was created to replace.

That might not be as conspiratorial as you make out. Perhaps it was because they could see that UFO reports might get in the way of “real” national security issues. There was a World War and then the Cold War. The USAF positively wanted citizens to report unusual activity (indeed the zeitgeist of the time was such that it was considered by the US populace to be their positive duty to report unusual activity), but instead of “enemy” activity, the USAF began being overwhelmed by UFO reports! After some trial and (often tragic) error, they discovered there was not a whole lot they could actually do about UFOs. The way they reacted to that and to public pressure is another story, but the actual descriptive terminology had nothing to do with it.

So straight off, the term UFO is nothing more than a euphemisim for flying saucer. It not only removed some of the mystique, but also facilitated a wider variety of configurations ... but configurations of what exactly?

I am not sure that “euphemism” is the correct term there. Again, we know precisely why the term UFO was created and it was not created for conspiratorial purposes. Besides, if it was conspiratorial – it has failed miserably to achieve its ends in that regard.

Now you may believe some sort of conspiracy existed (or even exists) – but when challenged you must provide evidence that your conspiracy theory is true. Merely stating that “it is painfully obvious” does not constitute that evidence. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Again it is also glaringly obvious that the USAF screening and investigative process was intended to rule out as many natural or manmade objects and phenomena as possible.

Sure, but when you think about it, that is (and should be) the goal of every good UFO investigation. However, what I think you mean to say is what Hynek stated - in that the goal of the USAF was to “explain away” as many UFO reports as having mundane explanations as possible, even when there was little or no evidence to support those mundane explanations and even where the observed characteristics positively defied mundane explanation. The reasons for the USAF wanting to “explain away” as many UFO reports as possible are many and varied but not necessarily conspiratorial (but that is a whole other debate).

Simply because their definitions don't list every possible mundane explanation doesn't mean they wanted mundane objects reported as UFOs. Imagine what would happen if a USAF pilot reported a blowing piece of tin foil as a UFO and used the excuse, "Well it doesn't say not to report it." AFR 200-2 Feb 05, 1958, defines in some detail the mundane objects not to be reported as UFOs and virtually all USAF definitions illustrate the unspoken policy not to report mundane objects as UFOs. Why not? Again the answer is obvious. Mundane objects aren't what the USAF was looking for.

Yes… so? No-one wants their dataset on UFOs corrupted by containing “mundane” objects.

What follows from that is that you believe that the government is hiding the truth of UFOs from us. That they know that UFOs are Et craft…

I don’t see how that follows at all. What you have to do is consider the alternative reasons for their actions and I would suggest they have much to do with internal division, and powerplays, public responsibility and public image, and the mindset of the populace (and I simply don’t have time just now to go into all of that - but it is a debate we must have I guess…).

So if UFOs aren't considered to be mundane ( of this world ), what are they? Again, I think most people reading this are bright enough to figure out that there is only one real answer.

ET is not the only alternative (nor indeed do I believe it is the full story). It seems to me to be altogether more unimaginable than that…

The USAF couldn't just come out and state the obvious.

The USAF could not because it was riven with internal division on the topic.

However we are smart enough to know exactly what they were investigating.

You believe you know that the USAF knew that they were investigating ET craft – but as I say, the USAF was hopelessly divided on the topic. Some thought they were ET craft, others thought it was a load of bunk. It was altogether too easy – and even natural - for them to default to the “bunk” position. Organisations such as the military and government do not do well with internal division. Sweeping it under the rug and hoping it will all go away is a tried and true method of avoidance. Sure, they will pay lip service to it in order to placate internal and external (public) pressure, but they will not actually do anything meaningful about it…

The advantage we have is that we don't have to play word games to confuse the public about what we're really doing.

Ummm… but are you not playing word games…?

We're looking for alien craft and we can just come right out and say it. So why not stop the pretense and just do it?

Sure, if that is what you are looking for then do the research and gather the evidence. But you have to be realistic too. In doing that you will have to fend off the mocking ridicule … and you will never get funding if you say you are looking at UFOs as ET craft – but you just may get it if you can prove that there actually is a real phenomenon worth investigating (just don’t mention the aliens! LOL)

Add to the above that most dictionaries and other standard definitions already include references to E.T. craft and the overwhelming public perception that the word UFO represents an alien craft.

Yes, but they say that UFO is popularly associated with ET, they do not say that UFOs are ET. There is a difference…

So now we have the entire word history…

You have not made that case.

…common dictionary meaning, and common public perception, all in agreement.

There is a vast difference between what a population believes to be true and what is actually true – history has (or should have) taught as that much at the very least.

This is not merely my personal opinion. It is a fact.

Just because you say so does not make it so. You need to support that “fact” with evidence and/or logical argument (that UFOs are ET spacecraft). I keep asking and you keep ignoring – but show us the evidence.

So although I respect that there will be those who do not agree with the facts and would prefer some other more ambiguous definition…

The term UFO is not ambiguous in the least. It means Unidentified Flying Object.

…perhaps to better suit their own skeptical agenda or whatever…

As a scientist I am a sceptic. Scientists are sceptics by definition. Their default position is to question every assumption made without fear or favour. I think you may actually mean “debunker”.

I am going to continue to tell it like it is.

Please do. I respect you for doing so. You believe UFOs are ET spacecraft. However, what I am trying to get you to do is provide the evidence you use to support that belief – and merely using ” Someone who coined the term also believed UFOs were ET spacecraft” does not do it.

The word UFO is meant to convey the concept of alien craft…

To you it may, but to many others it does not – and you merely saying so does not make it so.

…and the objects in UFO reports are undentified objects or phenomena that might possibly be alien craft, but still need to be investigated and/or proven to be UFOs.

No – UFOs need to be proved as ET spacecraft. And I agree it is a hypothesis that deserves investigation – but it is your thesis that they are and so you need to provide the evidence that they are to us. Can you do that?

 

[boomerang]

I think one would expect an active duty member of the USAF tasked with explaining (or publicly deflecting) this phenomenon, whatever we choose to call it, to concoct a term that is an acronym implying some kind of flying craft. Or at the very least, something flying. Ruppelt was doubtless aware of the parameters within which he was constrained to work. One reason I remain big fan of Vallee is that he manages to speculate about ufos as a phenomenon within a larger spectrum of strangeness and does so based on almost no assumptions that we (the general public anyway) know what the heck is going on.

 

[Randall]

... No – UFOs need to be proved as ET spacecraft. And I agree it is a hypothesis that deserves investigation – but it is your thesis that they are and so you need to provide the evidence that they are to us. Can you do that? ...

Rramjet:

Much of what you had said actually supports my position when viewed in the context I've been trying to convey here ... consequently I've concentrated this post on a key issue that keeps getting missed. I will restate my position on this to clarify. With respect to the section quoted above, as it applies to establishing a definition, no proof of the reality of anything needs to be established in order to create a definition for it. Definitions are used to convey what we mean, not whether or not it is real or fictional. It is the context of usage that establishes whether it is meant to be taken literally, metaphorically, or fictionally. For example:

Millenium Falcon: "The Millennium Falcon became famous as the personal smuggling starship of Han Solo and Chewbacca. It began life as a standard Corellian Engineering Corporation YT-1300 stock light freighter..."

​

As you can see, we are all familiar with the Millenium Falcon. No proof is needed that it actually exists to create a definition for it. Another common word is "tomorrow". We have no proof that it exists, but we don't define it as, "Tomorrow: Believed to be the day after today by most, particularly those with faith in the future, but not proven to exist." Such requirements are mere contrivances for the sake of alluding to particular points of view.

The word UFO has been subject to far more than its fair share of contrivances already. But the one thing we are certain of is that the word history has carried the concept of an alien craft with it all the way from inception to the present day. It's time to simply accept that and continue working toward acquiring the proof of where UFOs come from, how they work, and what they have been doing here.

---------- Post added 09-24-2011 at 12:23 AM ---------- Previous post was 09-23-2011 at 11:47 PM ----------

I think one would expect an active duty member of the USAF tasked with explaining (or publicly deflecting) this phenomenon, whatever we choose to call it, to concoct a term that is an acronym implying some kind of flying craft. Or at the very least, something flying. Ruppelt was doubtless aware of the parameters within which he was constrained to work. One reason I remain big fan of Vallee is that he manages to speculate about ufos as a phenomenon within a larger spectrum of strangeness and does so based on almost no assumptions that we (the general public anyway) know what the heck is going on.

boomerang:

Good points boomer. When I was going through the microfilm files investigating exactly how the term UFO came into being and whether or not Ruppelt could really take credit for it, it became readily apparent that the phrase "unidentified flying object" had been used previously. It also became apparent that Ruppelt was well aware of the politics he had inherited. He had been assigned to the Air Force's UFO project just after the big political wrangle between members of Project Sign who had concluded that UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft, and Air Force officialdom. Guess who lost the argument. Consequently Ruppelt wasn't going to rock the boat by taking an openly sympathetic approach to Sign's conclusion. In fact, because Sign's conclusion had been rejected by officialdom, Ruppelt basically had to rewind and start over from before Sign's conclusion. Sign had used the phrase "unidentified flying object" so it was both convenient and it suited his need to avoid implying the USAF was looking for E.T. craft. What Ruppelt did was turn "unidentified flying object" into an acronym and assign a particular pronounciation for it ( yoo-foe ). Thus the word UFO was born. You can read the detailed history here:

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

Here's an old episode from the classic sci-fi series UFO in which the original pronounciation was used fairly often. Personally I've always liked it and often use it myself.

[video=youtube_share;kZwQ69sqNt4]http://youtu.be/kZwQ69sqNt4[/video]

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet

Much of what you had said actually supports my position when viewed in the context I've been trying to convey here ...

First, you are arguing here using the methods of the debunker. A primary rule of debate for the debunker is to put forward unsubstantiated claims or opinion as if they were fact. However, just because someone says so, does not make it so. If you make a claim, then you need to support that claim with evidence and/or logical argument. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Second, that you can claim what you just have means that you have totally missed the substantive points in my own argument – either that or you have wilfully ignored them – and I tend to the latter belief because I have directly asked you a number of questions in relation to those points that I have made and those questions you have not answered.

Lets look at the argument in a nutshell:

Your argument is:

P1: Ruppelt coined the term UFO because he believed “flying saucer” was misrepresentative, being merely one member of a larger category of such objects
P2: Ruppelt believed some UFOs might be able to be explained as ET spacecraft
C: UFO means ET spacecraft.

My point is that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Let me demonstrate that point by positing another argument of the same form:

P1: I coin the term “alphabet” because I believe “Y” is misrepresentative, being merely one member of a larger category of such objects (characters)
P2: I believe some of the alphabet may be able to be explained as the word of God
C: “alphabet” means “word of God”.

…consequently I've concentrated this post on a key issue that keeps getting missed. I will restate my position on this to clarify. With respect to the section quoted above, as it applies to establishing a definition, no proof of the reality of anything needs to be established in order to create a definition for it.

Now you have argued using another favourite debunker methodology, that of the strawman argument. No-one has argued that something needs to be real before a definition can be created for it.

Rather, I specifically argued that a definition must supply us with a set of definitive characteristics (or criteria) by which we may identify the object in question (be it an apple, a pig, or a UFO) as separate and distinct from any other object. “ET craft” cannot be a definition for “UFO” because it merely replaces one unknown with another unknown – and as I demonstrated above, it is also replacing the category label with one of the members of the category (like replacing “alphabet” with “Y” and claiming “Y” is a definition of “alphabet”). It is not a sound logical approach.

Definitions are used to convey what we mean, not whether or not it is real or fictional.

A definition explains the meaning of a word or a phrase. It describes and makes clear that meaning. It allows us to distinguish that object (or class of objects) from any other. As I pointed out above, merely saying a UFO is an ET craft is to replace one unknown with another unknown – for what is an ET craft? That is, if we were to look up in the sky, what features of any flying object would allow us to say “That is an ET craft” (as opposed to any other flying object)?

Moreover, while some UFOs may potentially be explicable as ET craft, it is not true that all UFOs are ET craft and further, the “explanation” (ET craft) is merely a hypothetical, it is not a definitive explanation because it has never (as far as I know) been proved to be true…

It is the context of usage that establishes whether it is meant to be taken literally, metaphorically, or fictionally.

Now you have used yet another favourite debunker argument – to concatenate a number of argumentative points into one as if they were logically linked, when in fact they are not. In this case you have concatenated your strawman argument about reality not being required for a definition with a point about the context of usage being able to supply a definition. The two points are separate and distinct and not logically linked at all.

I have dealt with your strawman argument above.

As for context being able to supply a definition… to use your example:

Millenium Falcon: "The Millennium Falcon became famous as the personal smuggling starship of Han Solo and Chewbacca. It began life as a standard Corellian Engineering Corporation YT-1300 stock light freighter..."

You will note some key terms in that description: “starship”, and “light freighter”. Now while I have absolutely no idea what or who Hans Solo or Chewbacca or Corellian is or are – being an English speaker, I do have a common concept of what “starship” and “light freighter” might mean: That is a small (from “light” as opposed to “heavy”) spacecraft (from “starship”) that serves as cargo vessel (from “freighter”). I then envision this “Millennium Falcon” to be analogous to a small coastal freighter in earthly shipping terms (as opposed to a bulk carrier like the super tankers of the oil industry or the giant container vessels…) plying its trade between stars (like the cities of a country) and not involved in intergalactic travel (like the super tankers or container vessels). It will therefore have a minimal crew (probably the captain and a navigator) along with a few men to handle the cargo and do the cooking and cleaning, etc. As with all coastal freighters, it will certainly not be armed. Now you tell me, has your “contextual definition” of the Millennium Falcon allowed me to accurately conceptualise the vehicle?

As you can see, we are all familiar with the Millenium Falcon.

Actually, I literally have absolutely no idea what this Millennium Falcon you speak of is - outside your description of it – and I would certainly question whether you have supplied a viable definition of it that would allow me to identify it.

No proof is needed that it actually exists to create a definition for it.

Back to your strawman argument again – no-one has contended that something must be real to be able to define it – but I ask you – have you supplied a definition of the Millennium Falcon so that I would know it if I saw it? I suspect you could show me a picture of the Millennium Falcon and I would simply not recognise it for what it is – yet you have alleged you have defined it for me…

Another common word is "tomorrow". We have no proof that it exists, but we don't define it as, "Tomorrow: Believed to be the day after today by most, particularly those with faith in the future, but not proven to exist." Such requirements are mere contrivances for the sake of alluding to particular points of view.

Here you have used yet another favourite trick of the debunker – that of making a completely unrelated statement that has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument at hand – as if that statement were actually pertinent or relevant to the topic at hand. I have absolutely no idea how the statement you just made relates to your argument that UFO can be defined as an ET craft.

The word UFO…

It is an acronym (FGS!) – its letters consist of the first letters of each word in the name of something – it is sometimes pronounced as a word – but in itself it is not a word. (I cannot believe you still want to argue over that – it is irrelevant – who cares, really?) Consider – do you say “yooapp” for UAP?

…has been subject to far more than its fair share of contrivances already. But the one thing we are certain of is that the word history has carried the concept of an alien craft with it all the way from inception to the present day.

No, that is your claim – and it is a claim you have not substantiated. We know why Ruppelt coined the term – and it did not carry any “alien” or “ET” meaning for him in doing so. In fact you have positively decried the early use of the term by the USAF for not making mention of alien or ET … you can’t have it both ways…

It's time to simply accept that and continue working toward acquiring the proof of where UFOs come from, how they work, and what they have been doing here.

When you make a rational case for your claims using evidence and/or logical argument, then I will consider whether I accept them or not – until then the evidence seems to suggest your claims are unwarranted.

Moreover, I have been repeatedly asking you to present the actual evidence for your claim that UFOs = ET – and so far you have not done so.


My expressed aim in this thread is to demonstrate by evidence and research that there are objects out there that defy plausible mundane explanation. You (ufology) seem to be doing your best to keep me from that task. You are free to maintain whatever beliefs you want. It is entirely legitimate for you to do so. However, when challenged, you should be able to justify those beliefs with evidence or logical argument. So far you have not been able to… will you now? Please?

 

[Randall]

A definition explains the meaning of a word or a phrase. It describes and makes clear that meaning. It allows us to distinguish that object (or class of objects) from any other. As I pointed out above, merely saying a UFO is an ET craft is to replace one unknown with another unknown – for what is an ET craft? That is, if we were to look up in the sky, what features of any flying object would allow us to say “That is an ET craft” (as opposed to any other flying object)?

Rramjet:

So we've established that one doesn't need to prove something is real in order to create a definition for it. That is progress. Now to deal with the issue of the definition itself. What are the aspects of the definition that "allows us to distinguish that object"?

UFO: Alien craft.

The word "alien" has a number of meanings, but is used in the definition to denote something originating from outside the environment in which it is found, in this case human civilization as we know it. This has connotations for the following more common definitions for the word alien:

1. strange: outside somebody’s normal or previous experience and seeming strange and sometimes threatening
2. inconsistent with something: not in keeping or totally incompatible with the nature of something or somebody.
3. extraterrestrial: from another world or part of the universe, or involving or relating to extraterrestrial beings.
4. connected with creatures from another world ... alien beings from outer space.
5. extraterrestrial: alien beings an alien spacecraft

Given the above we can focus on the relevant points with respect to the word "craft" and create from the two words the following explanation:

An alien craft is something that is not in keeping or totally incompatible with the nature of craft that we are otherwise familiar with as part of our normal or previous experience, and is often presumed to be extraterrestrial in nature and connected with creatures from another world.

NOTE: The word "craft" also has a number of meanings but in this case means a vessel used for traveling. Posting dictionary definitions for this seems unnecessary as the word intent is pretty much self-evident.

So what part of the definition for UFO isn't getting the point across? The part about it being alien or the part about it being a craft?

 

[manxman]

This is getting abit surreal.


Ufology, i have read dozens upon dozens of your postings, over at the old queens place, you have picked up bad habits from your interactions there imo, you were dreadfully naive, when you first arrived, but very decent.

In those exchanges you describe your own experiences as a teenager, now to you it has left no doubt in your mind that you saw an alien spacecraft, and you kept describing it as a UFO.

Truth is it was not even a UFO in any sense from the way you described it, you described a bright light that maneuvered alittle in the air, and at one point touched ground the other side of the lake, what you saw was a light, an unidentified light, a UL, if it was a craft or object, then you would be able to describe the craft or object.

The only part of UFO that has any relevance to your story, is the U, as you cannot even be sure the light was flying, and not just air-bourne, a UAL.

Look the acronym is flexible in its usage, rightly or wrongly i do not really give a shit, however the definition is none negotiable, no matter what word games you play, Unidentified Flying Object, all the word games in the world will not be able to substitute ET for#unidentified# by extension in UFO, just because it is possible for ET to exist.


By the way i believed your story was told best as you could remember a very unusual event in what was then a very young life, i dont see any point to you being untruthful, ive listened to lots of people answering my questions as truthfully as they could, turns out lots were mistaken, not dishonest.

 

[Randall]

... Truth is it was not even a UFO in any sense from the way you described it, you described a bright light that maneuvered alittle in the air, and at one point touched ground the other side of the lake, what you saw was a light, an unidentified light, a UL, if it was a craft or object, then you would be able to describe the craft or object ...

manxman:

There was more to my sighting than you summarized in your post. What I saw was a UFO ( alien craft ). It was small, possibly a reconnaissance probe. It was seen more than once the same night and again during dawn. When it departed it instantly accellerated out of sight in the snap of your fingers. The fact that it was glowing doesn't make it merely a light. The core object was about as wide as a VW Beetle and it did precision maneuvers. Nothing made by our civilization can do what this object did.

 

[manxman]

Then you can clearly describe the object, you have not done that so far, i accept it was a big unidentified light, that performed manoeuvrings you find extraordinary, you have given the light structure, yet you cannot describe the structure.

It is hard for me to accept your description being even a UFO, as i have spent alot of time on plasma characteristics, as apart from bluebook, my main interest in the field of UFOs has been martins nasa shuttle and space station footage, i can logically accept space as a huge ocean with exotic life-forms swimming in its great expanses, like our seas, the smallest feeding solely of the energies around them, as plankton's smaller relatives do in our oceans i can accept nature and evolution in a cosmic sense rather than earth being the only place a cell has multiplied.

I may come-over to you as hostile to your conviction in ETs visitations of earth, i just feel little green men comin all the way here, to just give us tantalizing glimpses of them, is way over simplifying the phenomena that appears/ed to be taking place.

I find it almost inconceivable, that intelligence exists solely here on earth, mind you i believe all that surrounds us, is of intelligent design, but i do not believe in god, there's no religion in me, so that's the conundrum, if we ever find proof of other intelligence, how that intelligence will manifest i have absolutely no idea, zog from uranus is only one of many ways we will become aware of other intelligences, i have my doubts we will even recognise it at all, and then there's the many many strange phenomena we will discover that have nothing to do with ET life or intelligence.

The acronym UFO is frequently abused imo, as what is described is frequently neither an object or flying but simply air-bourne phenomena.

 

[trainedobserver]

The core object was about as wide as a VW Beetle and it did precision maneuvers. Nothing made by our civilization can do what this object did.

You know that is an unsupportable assumption. It should be classified as an educated guess and not a statement of fact. How educated of a guess is it? It would be safer and more accurate to say that you saw a flying object that you could not identify as being manufactured using state of the art technology as you understand it. How well do you, or anyone of us, understand the state of the art represented by the closed R&D labs that are in DFW area alone?

While I understand why you may feel you have seen something of alien manufacture, it requires more than the perception of these things in operation to justify a positive identification.

While I feel that these objects with such extreme performance characteristics are most likely not manufactured by contemporary human civilization, I'm not sure what assumptions are safe to make. For example, what other species has displayed technological development. While it can be argued that other species use crude tools, they do not refine and develop their tools over generations do they? What other choice is there other than human beings of some kind? Privileged human beings? Other human beings belonging to an entirely different level of civilization? Who knows? It often strongly appears alien to the experiencer, that does seem to be reoccurring theme.

In the early hours of this morning I awoke from a dream and as whatever the dream was faded from my mind, I thought, "We're occupied." If UFOs can fly our skies and disarm our nuclear weapons at will, we are occupied by a superior force of some kind." Who or what they actually are a mystery. Perhaps it isn't "we" who are occupied, but the Earth, occupied by someone else other than modern man.

 

[Randall]

You know that is an unsupportable assumption. It should be classified as an educated guess and not a statement of fact. How educated of a guess is it? ...

... While I feel that these objects with such extreme performance characteristics are most likely not manufactured by contemporary human civilization, I'm not sure what assumptions are safe to make.

trainedobserver,

Well train, when the object departed it covered a distance of ove 25Km in about 1 second from a dead stop. If you think that is within our technology ( then or now ) please explain.

 

[Rramjet]

I agree manxman – this is getting a bit surreal.

A UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object. Nothing more, nothing less.

Some hypothetical explanations for UFOs include:

Misidentified mundane objects
Hoaxes
Psychological manifestations
Unknown natural phenomena
Advanced “black” technology
Extraterrestrial spacecraft
Exotic life forms
Inter/extra-dimensional beings
Jungian collective unconscious
The spirit world
Etc and so on…

Now as far as I know, the only thing UFOs have so far positively (with certainty) been identified as (explained as being) are the top three on that list - and it is highly likely (to the point of practical certainty) that hypothetical’s listed in positions four and five will also play a role.

However, despite the debunker’s and researcher’s best efforts, we are still left with that percentage of UFO reports which seem to defy plausible mundane explanation (and here the current argument raised by the research conducted by the Battelle institute - http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf - is about whether that percentage is in line with the “received wisdom” figure of 5%, or more in line with the Battelle research findings of about 20%).

The question is then how we are to assess that remaining percentage (whatever it may be). Of all the remaining hypothetical explanations in the above list, it seems to me that ET is the most plausible. However, if history has taught us anything at all, it is that looks can be deceiving. In that regard trainedobserver’s statement becomes particularly relevant and important:

While I feel that these objects with such extreme performance characteristics are most likely not manufactured by contemporary human civilization, I'm not sure what assumptions are safe to make.

Indeed. What assumptions are safe to make about that percentage of UFO reports which may be categorised “Unidentified” (or “Unknown”)?

Many intelligent and qualified people do believe that the ET hypothesis is the only remaining plausible explanatory hypothesis. But just because it seems to be a plausible explanatory hypothesis – even a compelling one - given the observations of ostensible “nuts and bolts” craft, intelligent control and associated beings – does that mean we can assume it is the correct explanation?

As long as there is no direct proof that the ET hypothesis is the correct explanation, we are forced into a position where we must state that while the ET hypothesis might be plausible and even compelling, we simply cannot be certain of its veracity, and therefore, as sceptics and scientists, we should not (are positively compelled not to) make any unwarranted assumptions in that regard. The ETH is just what it states: an hypothesis. It needs testing. It needs research with the aim of falsification. It needs proof. Or as Sagan stated in the TV series which made him famous; it needs the “hard evidence, rigorously and sceptically examined” before we can come to any positive conclusions (Cosmos: A Personal Voyage (1980) Episode 12: Encyclopaedia Galactica @ 1:21 sec - available on Google video - but copyright prevents me adding the link here). And I might add that his "extraordinary claimes require extraordinary evidence" is a load of nonsensical bunk - but that is another debate entirely...

Returning to the current debate then, ufology seems to be attempting to make one particular hypothetical explanation (the ETH) into a definition for UFOs. Now it should be obvious that this cannot be a definition for UFOs if it is merely a hypothetical explanation. ufology might believe that some UFOs are ET spacecraft - and he is perfectly entitled to that belief and he is in good company in holding it – but the mere fact that some people hold that belief does not make that belief a true belief. Moreover, if we are simply making up definitions for UFO based on what people believe, we might as well contend that “hoax” is a definition for UFO (or indeed any of the other hypothetical’s on the above list). And on that score, misidentified mundane objects have a vastly greater claim to be definitional, simply because that is what many UFOs have been proved to be! And I am sure ufology would not want that to be a definition of UFOs…

Now of course ufology has mentioned that it is not “ET craft” per se, but “alien craft” he is attempting to get recognised as a definition. Here of course he would contend that “alien” simply means foreign (strange, outside normal or previous experience), but while no-one could argue in that context that “alien” (as in foreign to current natural or technological knowledge) is not a true descriptor for many UFOs, as soon as he couples that with “craft” (as in spacecraft) then what else but some sort of “alien” technology or intelligent invention can be meant? But what if, as seems highly likely, some UFOs turn out not to be “technological” at all?

ufology asks:

So what part of the definition for UFO isn't getting the point across? The part about it being alien or the part about it being a craft?

It’s all of it ufology. The confusing slipperiness between ET and “alien” you have introduced*. The unfounded assumption in the designation of technology (or intelligent invention) in your use of “craft”. The attempt to get one particular hypothetical explanation above all others recognised as a definition…. So please, the acronym UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object – nothing more, nothing less – for which many hypothetical explanations exist (some of which have proof, some do not. Some of which seem plausible, others not).

*Now I know that in another place that shall remain nameless, I have argued that UFOs may be properly labelled as “alien” (as in foreign to current natural or technological knowledge) – but I was at pains to point out that did not necessarily mean ET (or anything technological). That is I never coupled that descriptor – as you have – with ET or technology of any sort.

So please, let us stop playing word games and illegitimately attempting to get personal beliefs and narrow hypotheticals introduced as “definitions” - and instead concentrate on the research and the evidence - and the debate about what that research and evidence indicates to us in consideration of what UFOs might be.

It may turn out after a proper, sceptical and critical examination of the research and the evidence that the ETH is a practically inescapable explanation - but we are very far from that point in the debate right now. But please ufology feel free to provide us with the evidence in support of your belief in the ETH. Allow us to assess that evidence so that we may determine if your belief – and the belief of a good many qualified and intelligent people I might add - is actually warranted.

Personally, I am not at all averse to the ETH. It seems to me a circumstantially plausible and compelling hypothesis. But that is all it is, a potential explanatory hypothesis – it is certainly not a definitive conclusion that is based on the research and the evidence. You may legitimately beg to differ, but if you do, I will need some justification before I am able to agree with your (seemingly categorical and certain) belief that some (or many) UFOs are indeed ET (or “alien”) craft.

 

[Randall]

I agree manxman – this is getting a bit surreal.

A UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object. Nothing more, nothing less ...

Wrong. That is just explanation of the acronym from the word origin ... not a definition. What the word means and has been defined as is not and has never been so simple as its mere definition of the individual words that make up its acronym. I'll add another word example here to illustrate the point that new words resulting from word origins can have new more precise and distinct meanings than their mere origins.

Consider the word "fax", originally from "facsimile" ( to make an exact copy ). Today we use this word to convey a type of electronic data transmission. If I said "I want a facsimile of this document", it would be significantly different that saying, "I want a fax of this document".

I could go on with more examples like NATO ( a much more complex definition than the definition of the words that makeup the acronym alone. ). But really what's the point. The whole issue is so obvious that this level of explanation shouldn't be necessary.

We've also already agreed that it isn't necessary to have scientifically proven the existence of UFOs as alien craft to be able to create a working definition.

I've also pointed out that the meanings of "alein" and "craft" are sufficiantly descriptive to give a distinct meaning to the word UFO that is not conveyed by its mere acronym.

So until someone comes up with reasonable counters to all the points I've made so far, which I'm sorry to say just hasn't been done. I see no reason to think that the word UFO isn't meant to convey the idea of alien craft. To reiterate the initial points.

• The huge majority of people when they hear the word UFO instantly think of an alien craft. So we should accept that fact and define it accordingly.
• The word was created to replace another phrase also assumed to have been alien craft, so it's whole history is based on that presumption anyway. It's been that way for over half a century and it's time to accept it.
• The USAF investigations had lengthy definitions for the express purpose of separating UFOs from any known natural or manmade object or phenomenon, including aircraft, leaving alien craft as the only remaining logical possibility.
• Private UFO investigative organizations have similar definitions that do nothing more than take another long way around to reach the same basic conclusion as the USAF definitions ... which all resolve down to alien craft in some way or another.
• Project Sign's Estimate of the Situation concluded UFOs are extraterrestrial craft, which for all practical purposes is the same as alien craft.
• Most dictionaries include extraterrestrial spacecraft as part of the definition already, which for all practical purposes is the same as an alien craft.

 

[trainedobserver]

trainedobserver,

Well train, when the object departed it covered a distance of ove 25Km in about 1 second from a dead stop. If you think that is within our technology ( then or now ) please explain.

I base this on the fact that my knowledge of technology is not complete. I have to ask myself the question, "If we do have such technology, do I possess the security clearance to know of such things?" The answer is no I don't.

All I am saying is that our knowledge is incomplete. The best we can say is, "It appeared alien." or better yet "It is beyond my ability to explain with my understanding of current technology."

I do happen to think there are objects operating in the Earth's atmosphere that are not manufactured and operated by human society as we understand it. I just think it is hard to get very far beyond that. We can call it "alien" but is it really? Until some real hard evidence is produced we are only making educated guesses.

Here is something else to consider as well. UFOs were considered a threat as long as we thought other humans might be behind them, i.e. the Russians. I think they may have, right or wrongly, deduced that humans weren't behind the phenomena and it dropped off the "clear and present danger" whiteboard or whatever. Maybe the "its alien" default explanation has indirectly caused the issue to be side-stepped by the military. If they were seen to be the product of a local "third power" operating under great stealth we wouldn't need a "war on terror" to prop up the military industrial complex. A missed opportunity if you ask me.

 

[pixelsmith]

Wrong. That is just explanation of the acronym from the word origin ... not a definition. What the word means and has been defined as is not and has never been so simple as its mere definition of the individual words that make up its acronym. I'll add another word example here to illustrate the point that new words resulting from word origins can have new more precise and distinct meanings than their mere origins.

Consider the word "fax", originally from "facsimile" ( to make an exact copy ). Today we use this word to convey a type of electronic data transmission. If I said "I want a facsimile of this document", it would be significantly different that saying, "I want a fax of this document".

I could go on with more examples like NATO ( a much more complex definition than the definition of the words that makeup the acronym alone. ). But really what's the point. The whole issue is so obvious that this level of explanation shouldn't be necessary.

We've also already agreed that it isn't necessary to have scientifically proven the existence of UFOs as alien craft to be able to create a working definition.

I've also pointed out that the meanings of "alein" and "craft" are sufficiantly descriptive to give a distinct meaning to the word UFO that is not conveyed by its mere acronym.

So until someone comes up with reasonable counters to all the points I've made so far, which I'm sorry to say just hasn't been done. I see no reason to think that the word UFO isn't meant to convey the idea of alien craft. To reiterate the initial points.

• The huge majority of people when they hear the word UFO instantly think of an alien craft. So we should accept that fact and define it accordingly.
• The word was created to replace another phrase also assumed to have been alien craft, so it's whole history is based on that presumption anyway. It's been that way for over half a century and it's time to accept it.
• The USAF investigations had lengthy definitions for the express purpose of separating UFOs from any known natural or manmade object or phenomenon, including aircraft, leaving alien craft as the only remaining logical possibility.
• Private UFO investigative organizations have similar definitions that do nothing more than take another long way around to reach the same basic conclusion as the USAF definitions ... which all resolve down to alien craft in some way or another.
• Project Sign's Estimate of the Situation concluded UFOs are extraterrestrial craft, which for all practical purposes is the same as alien craft.
• Most dictionaries include extraterrestrial spacecraft as part of the definition already, which for all practical purposes is the same as an alien craft.

i disagree. i KNOW i saw a UFO, i do not know that is was extraterrestrial in origin.

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:

“A UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object. Nothing more, nothing less ...”

Wrong. That is just explanation of the acronym from the word origin…

Ufology – what does that statement even mean?

According to the Oxford Dictionary, a definition is: “”1 a statement of the exact meaning of a word” and “2 an exact statement or description of the nature, scope, or meaning of something” (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/definition).

How then (according to the definition of “definition”…) does the statement “ A UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object” not then constitute a definition of UFO? It is after all an exact statement of meaning…

Your statement “A UFO is an alien craft” is not a definition because it is not an exact statement of meaning. Rather, it is a hypothetical explanatory example of a UFO.

Consider: An Apple is a Grannysmith.

That is not a definition of “apple” because there exist other varieties. What if I had a Pink Lady or a Golden Delicious or a Gravenstein, etc.… “Grannysmith” (as a definition for apple) does not define those varieties as apples for us. Thus “Grannysmith” is an example of an apple, but it does not constitute a definition of “apple”. In the same way as “alien craft” might be an example of an hypothetical explanation for UFO, but does not constitute a definition of UFO.

We've also already agreed that it isn't necessary to have scientifically proven the existence of UFOs as alien craft to be able to create a working definition.

You may legitimately state that a Grannysmith is an example of an apple, but you cannot state that an apple is an example of a Grannysmith… an apple is much more than a Grannysmith. Apple is a category to which Grannysmith belongs according to the definition of apple. UFO is a category, to which "alien craft" might belong - but we really don't know...

You may legitimately hypothesise that some UFOs might be the result of ET activity (and therefore be explicable as alien craft), but you cannot say that a UFO is an alien craft... a UFO is much more than an alien craft – and critically, a UFO might not even BE an alien craft at all. That is “alien craft” is merely a hypothetical explanation – it has simply not been proved to be an example of UFO at all.

I've also pointed out that the meanings of "alein" and "craft" are sufficiantly descriptive to give a distinct meaning to the word UFO that is not conveyed by its mere acronym.

A UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object. As soon as it has been identified – it is no longer a UFO! If you identify a particular UFO as an alien craft – than that is what it is! It is no longer a UFO because it has been identified.

Any member of a category may be identified as a particular example of that category, but that example does not constitute a definition of the whole category.

So until someone comes up with reasonable counters to all the points I've made so far, which I'm sorry to say just hasn't been done.

I have done so in previous posts, and I have done so again in this one. I have asked you direct questions concerning my “reasonable counters” to your points and you have ignored both my counters and my questions. If you continue to ignore my counters and questions, and choose instead to merely talk over me, then I am afraid that does not constitute a debate. You are merely making statements of belief without any consideration of counterpoints to those statements.

The huge majority of people when they hear the word UFO instantly think of an alien craft. So we should accept that fact and define it accordingly.

The huge majority of people thought that the Universe revolved around the earth. They were wrong.

The word was created to replace another phrase also assumed to have been alien craft, so it's whole history is based on that presumption anyway. It's been that way for over half a century and it's time to accept it.

The ACRONYM (!!!!) was created by Ruppelt because he saw that “flying saucer” misrepresented the category – nothing more, nothing less. The quotes from Ruppelt himself demonstrating that have been cited in this thread many times.

Further, that some people believe that some UFOs might be explicable as ET craft does not make it true!

The USAF investigations had lengthy definitions for the express purpose of separating UFOs from any known natural or manmade object or phenomenon, including aircraft, leaving alien craft as the only remaining logical possibility.

The USAF researched UFOs with the primary intent to “explain” them all away as misidentified mundane objects. We have no less an authority and Dr J. A. Hynek, the principle investigator on Project Blue Book, to testify to that (and much official documentary evidence besides…).

Further, just because a UFO might defy plausible mundane explanation, that fact alone does not mean that “alien craft” is THE explanation. It is just not true that “the only remaining logical possibility” is alien craft (for example they might not be “craft” at all).

Private UFO investigative organizations have similar definitions that do nothing more than take another long way around to reach the same basic conclusion as the USAF definitions ... which all resolve down to alien craft in some way or another.

The USAF have not ever (never!) defined UFO in terms of alien craft. Private UFO organisations (and citizens) may define UFO in any way they desire – but that mere fact does not make them correct in their definitions – and if they do so they should be prepared to (and be able to) justify their beliefs, sup[porting them with evidence or logical argument. If they cannot, then they will be determined to be merely making unfounded statements of belief, rather than formal definitions supported by evidence.

Project Sign's Estimate of the Situation concluded UFOs are extraterrestrial craft, which for all practical purposes is the same as alien craft.

” Upon becoming aware of the explosion of reports of anomalous aerial phenomena over the United States in the summer of 1947, the U.S. Air Force became alarmed and instituted emergency studies of the "flying disks." Quickly this task was delegated to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base's intelligence division, and in January 1948 became a formal project, Sign. Sign investigated the phenomenon for seven months and decided that it was best explained by the extraterrestrial (spacecraft) hypothesis (ETH). An Estimate was produced for the Pentagon giving reasons for this. Elements of the very high rank in the Pentagon would not accept this, and their refusal led to a major debate on the ETH, which resulted in the ultimate breakup of the Project Sign team and the destruction of all (with perhaps one exception) copies of the document. This early confrontation set the tone for the USAF behavior toward UFOs for the next two years and, after a brief respite in the era of Capt. Edward Ruppelt, until the complete cessation of the formal USAF project on the phenomenon in 1969.” (Swords, M., D. (2000) Journal of UFO Studies, New Series, Vol. 7, pp.27-64. http://www.nicap.org/papers/swords_Sign_EOTS.htm)

​

None of that of course means that we may now legitimately define UFO as ET craft.

I am somewhat gratified however that you have finally indicated directly that your “alien craft” are, for all practical purposes to be considered as equivalent to “ET craft”.

Most dictionaries include extraterrestrial spacecraft as part of the definition already, which for all practical purposes is the same as an alien craft.

The Oxford dictionary defines UFO as:

”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.” (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/UFO)

​

They key in relation to ET craft is that little meme “often supposed”. That means it is popularly believed that UFOs might be ET craft – but that mere statement of belief does not make it true!

Besides, I have provided (above) many sound reasons why UFO cannot be defined in isolation (as you want it to be) as “alien craft”, NO dictionary does that.

Moreover, the Collins dictionary defines UFO as simply:

”unidentified flying object,” (http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx)

​

Simply NO dictionary ever defines UFO with sole reference to “alien craft” – they invariably couch it in terms of first a statement to the effect that the object is unidentified according to current knowledge and then in terms of a popular belief – it is NEVER (as you try to suggest it is) the popular belief alone.

Ufology, I have addressed all your points comprehensively (again) and if you truly want to engage in a debate, you will recognise and directly address my own counterpoints to your argument. So far you have ignored all my counterpoints to your argument to merely reiterate your belief statements. Will you please address my counterpoints this time – or can we just move on?

 

[Randall]

I stated:

... Ufology, I have addressed all your points comprehensively (again) and if you truly want to engage in a debate, you will recognise and directly address my own counterpoints to your argument. So far you have ignored all my counterpoints to your argument to merely reiterate your belief statements. Will you please address my counterpoints this time – or can we just move on?

Rramjet,

You may have addressed the points but you haven't sufficiently counterred any of them. How about we take this one step at a time. When I pointed out the the word origin is different than the definition, your response was, "what does that statement even mean?" Perhaps when we get that part clarified we can carry on with the rest of it. Here is the actual definition for the example used:

======================

fax [faks] noun (plural fax·es)
1.message sent electronically: an image or document that is transmitted in digitized electronic form over telephone lines and reproduced in its original form on the receiving end
2.system for transmitting documents: a system of transmitting documents and images electronically over telephone lines (often used before a noun)
•sent by fax
3.fax or fax ma·chine (plural fax ma·chines)
transmitting machine: a machine incorporating a telephone that sends and receives documents or images via fax
transitive verb (past faxed, past participle faxed, present participle fax·ing, 3rd person present singular fax·es)
send electronically: to send a message or document electronically using a fax machine

[Mid-20th century. Shortening of FACSIMILE.]

======================

In the above dictionary entry, we see that the word "fax" had it's word origin in the word "facsimile". The square brackets are the word origin. Now we look at the word "facsimile"

======================

facsimile fac·sim·i·le [fak símm?lee] noun (plural fac·sim·i·les)
1.copy of something: an exact copy of something, for example, a document, a coin, or somebody’s handwriting
2.fax: a fax
transitive verb (past fac·sim·i·led, past participle fac·sim·i·led, present participle fac·sim·il·ing, 3rd person present singular fac·sim·i·les)
make copy of something: to make an exact copy or reproduction of something

[Late 16th century. From modern Latin, from Latin facere, “to do, make” + simile, “similar.”]

======================

So we see above that the word origin "facsimile" is substantially different than the definition for the word "fax". In other words, The word origin and the definition are different. Now with respect to UFOs:

======================

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

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/UFO

======================

Above we can see that the entry for the definition in the Oxford dictionary is set clearly apart from the word origin. Now we move onto the concept of "unidentified":

======================

unidentified un·i·den·ti·fied [ùn i dént? f?d] adjective

1. unable to be named: unable to be recognized or given a name
2. wanting to remain anonymous: wishing not to be associated with or held responsible for something

======================

The term "unidentified" is not adequate when referencing UFOs because merely being unrecognizable isn't part of the USAF criteria or the word history. Flying saucers were clearly recognizable, and that's the word that "UFO" was created to replace, and it is included as one of the UFO configurations.

Also, an unrecognizable light in the distance that could be an aircraft did not fall under the USAF definition of UFO. See AFR 200-2 Feb 05 1958. All aircraft are clearly excluded. Even things merely suggestive of aircraft are excluded.

Furthermore, the intent of screening UFO reports was to separate all known manmade and natural objects and phenomena from UFOs. So then what is it they were looking for? Well ... the common current definition of UFO above clearly says, "often supposed to be a vehicle carrying extraterrestrials" ... so here we are again ... back at alien craft.

What about the above is not accurate?

 

[manxman]

The thread is about UFOs the research and evidence.

Ramjets definition of UFO is unidentified flying object.
So that makes his thread matter, Unidentified Flying Objects the research and evidence.

Is that comprehensible enough for you, because if i didnt know better i would sear you are just trolling.

Ufology this is getting patently absurd, pages of back and forth over the definition of UFO, take it to a separate thread ffs.
Your obviously going to just carry on this absurd merry go round in your quest to redefine UFO to mean alien craft.

 

[Rramjet]

I agree with Manxman –

Ufology, if you want to argue the definition of UFO further, then perhaps you should take it to another thread.

I have titled this thread – UFOS: the Research, the Evidence.

For the purposes of this thread I have defined UFOs as – Unidentified Flying Objects (nothing more, nothing less).

The concept is quite simple: UFOs (defined as Unidentified Flying Objects) exist – and even the UFO debunkers acknowledge that much. What is argued over is the explanation for UFOs.

The UFO debunkers believe all UFOs can be explained in terms of be misidentified mundane objects, hoaxes and hallucinations. ufology believes they can be explained as ET craft. However, not even the debunkers are so implacable in their belief as to attempt to get UFOs defined in the terms of their belief.

My substantive claim is that there exists research and evidence to demonstrate that UFOs simply cannot be explained away as misidentified mundane objects, hoaxes or hallucinations, yet at the same time we do not have the evidence to conclude ET craft either. Quite simply I am contending that UFOs exist that defy plausible mundane explanation.

In relation to that, I do not pretend to have a definitive alternative explanation for what those UFOs are.

I believe that UFOs may actually represent a number of different phenomena - and that it is unlikely that any single explanation will cover the range of what people observe. In that regard there are a range of potential explanatory hypotheses - which include such things as undiscovered natural phenomena, “secret” technology and yes, the ETH – each of which deserves critical analysis. I am of course open to any other hypothetical explanation, so long as it can be plausibly justified by evidence or logical argument.

Now while I believe the ETH is a plausible explanatory hypothesis - on the grounds that science predicts that ET should exist, that science does not rule out interstellar travel and that we have apparently reliable observations of “nuts and bolts craft ostensibly displaying intelligent control and sometimes with associated beings - nevertheless, as far as I know, we just do not have the direct proof (the physical evidence) to support that hypothesis. The ETH has only circumstantial evidence in support - and is therefore potentially erroneous (looks can be deceiving).

Nevertheless, if ufology has evidence that I do not know about that could confirm the ETH as an explanation for UFOs, then I and many others would certainly like to see it.

In relation to my own hypothesis, the best case evidence would of course be one where there was a conjunction of a number of pieces of evidence. It would contain a reliable observation by multiple eyewitnesses in conjunction with radar confirmation and film or photographs.

What cases fulfil those criteria? Well, the White Sands case comes close:

White Sands: Twinkle, Twinkle Little Craft (April-May 1950)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)
(http://www.nicap.org/ncp/ncp-brumac.htm)
(http://www.project1947.com/gfb/twinklereport.htm)

However, the New Zealand case seems to cover it all:

The New Zealand (Kaikoura) UFO sightings (31 Dec 1978 )
(http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/11668/The_Kaikoura_Lights__New_Zealand_UFO_Footage__1978/)

The following articles can be seen on Dr Bruce Maccabee’s website: (http://brumac.8k.com/)
1. Challenging the Paradigm!’
(http://brumac.8k.com/ChallengeParadigm/Challenging the Paradigm.htm)
2. New Zealand Sightings (of December 31 1978 ).
(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/A History of NZ Sightings 12 31 78.doc)
3. New Zealand Radar Sighting.
(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/RADARUFOS.doc)
4. Flashing Light Film from New Zealand! (the so-called ‘squid boat!’)
(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZFlashingLight/NZFlashingLight.html)
5. Squid Boat
(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZSB.html)

Published academic articles:
Maccabee, B. (1979a) What Really Happened in New Zealand. Mutual UFO Journal, May and June.
Maccabee, B. (1979b) Technical analysis of the New Zealand Film. (unpublished)
Maccabee, B.(1979c) Photometric Properties of an Unidentified Bright Object Seen off the Coast of New Zealand. Applied Optics, 18, 2527.
Maccabee, B. (1980) Photometric Properties of an Unidentified Bright Object Seen off the Coast of New Zealand: Author's Reply to Comments. Applied Optics, 19, 1745.
Maccabee, B. (1987) Analysis and Discussion of the Images of a Cluster of Periodically Flashing Lights Filmed off the Coast of New Zealand. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1, 149.
Maccabee, B. (1999) Atmosphere or UFO. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 13, 421.

Other articles/books
Startup, W. and Illingworth, N. (1980). The Kaikoura UFOs. Auckland: Hodder and Stoughton.
Fogarty, Q. (1982). Let’s Hope They’re Friendly. Australia: Angus and Robertson.
Guthrie-Jones, D. (02/01/1979) Airforce put on UFO alert. The Melbourne Sun/Herald.
The Kaikoura UFO sighting continues to baffle, 30 years on.
(http://www.3news.co.nz/The-Kaikoura...ars-on/tabid/412/articleID/76505/Default.aspx)
(http://www.ufocusnz.org.nz/kaikoura.htm)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaikoura_lights)
There is also a 1979 Australian Playboy article by Quentin Fogerty (the reporter on the flight – I don’t have the precise reference at hand)

 

[Randall]

I agree with Manxman –

Ufology, if you want to argue the definition of UFO further, then perhaps you should take it to another thread.

I have titled this thread – UFOS: the Research, the Evidence.

For the purposes of this thread I have defined UFOs as – Unidentified Flying Objects (nothing more, nothing less).

Rramjet,

Fair enough. I would think that defining what we're researching accurately would be a facet of the research, but I also agree we're getting bogged down in it and neither of us is going to give on the issue, so I have no problem letting it go and getting on with other issues. Thanks for all your comments.

---------- Post added at 01:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 AM ----------

... My substantive claim is that there exists research and evidence to demonstrate that UFOs simply cannot be explained away as misidentified mundane objects, hoaxes or hallucinations, yet at the same time we do not have the evidence to conclude ET craft either. Quite simply I am contending that UFOs exist that defy plausible mundane explanation ...

OK so by "mundane"
mun·dane[mun dáyn] adjective

1. ordinary: commonplace, not unusual, and often boring
2. of this world: relating to matters of this world

[ 15th century. Via French mondain, from late Latin mundanus, from Latin mundus, "world."

— mun·dane·ly, adverb
— mun·dane·ness, noun

( Encarta )

===============================

So if I understand you correctly then, for the word "mundane", you are referencing the secondary definition above and are contending that UFOs exist that defy plausible worldly explanation? So we're talking about UFOs ( alien craft ) again? Or do you have some other definition for "mundane" you would prefer to use? If so please cite your choice of dictionary reference so that we are clear on your substantiative claim.

In the mean time, I'll presume you mean what the common dictionary reference means and that you are talking about UFOs ( alien craft ) in the context of your substantiative claim, and that in the context of UFO reports you are referencing unidentified objects that are the subject of UFO reports.

So, Project Twinkle

Interesting link. I'll have to go through it in more detail. But the Skyhook balloon explanation does fit close enough with altitude estimates. Those things went up to 30Km high. The reason that they were illuminated may have been because at that altitude, the sun may have been shining on them even though the ground was dark. And the speed was undetermined, so perhaps they were just caught in some fast moving air current. We'd need to establish the dates and times and visibility of the sun at the altituded they were measured and compare that to the atmospheric wind speed at those altitudes on those days. But still, the green fireballs are an interesting part of ufology history. If they were non-mundane ( not of this world ), maybe they were meteors. I saw a huge greenish white meteor when I was a kid out in BC. The thing was even caught on film. It fit the green fireball description to a tee. Were any of these fireballs seen changing direction or speed significantly?

 

[Rramjet]

For the purposes of this thread I have defined UFOs as – Unidentified Flying Objects (nothing more, nothing less).

Fair enough. I would think that defining what we're researching accurately would be a facet of the research, but I also agree we're getting bogged down in it and neither of us is going to give on the issue, so I have no problem letting it go and getting on with other issues. Thanks for all your comments.

Don’t get me wrong, a discussion about the definition of UFO is useful, but we were bogged down in one particular aspect of that: That is, is it legitimate to allow an individual belief to define a category to the exclusion of all other individual beliefs? I contend it is not, you contend it is. Your reasoning was that it can if it is a popular belief. That is many, if not most, people immediately think “ET” when they hear “UFO”, so why not just define UFO as ET? My objection was that mere popularity does not confer veracity. For example, most people once believed the sun revolved around the earth, but that did not mean it was correct to define the sun as an object that revolved around the earth. While it looked like the sun revolved around the earth, in fact it did not. While it looks like (at least some) UFOs are ET, in fact they may not be. Looks can be deceiving. Furthermore, “I saw a UFO” is not equivalent to “I saw an ET craft”. It is the difference between “I saw something which I cannot identify” and I saw something which I have identified as…”.

... My substantive claim is that there exists research and evidence to demonstrate that UFOs simply cannot be explained away as misidentified mundane objects, hoaxes or hallucinations, yet at the same time we do not have the evidence to conclude ET craft either. Quite simply I am contending that UFOs exist that defy plausible mundane explanation ...

OK so by "mundane"
mun·dane[mun dáyn] adjective

1. ordinary: commonplace, not unusual, and often boring
2. of this world: relating to matters of this world

[ 15th century. Via French mondain, from late Latin mundanus, from Latin mundus, "world."

— mun·dane·ly, adverb
— mun·dane·ness, noun

So if I understand you correctly then, for the word "mundane", you are referencing the secondary definition above and are contending that UFOs exist that defy plausible worldly explanation? So we're talking about UFOs ( alien craft ) again? Or do you have some other definition for "mundane" you would prefer to use? If so please cite your choice of dictionary reference so that we are clear on your substantiative claim.

In the mean time, I'll presume you mean what the common dictionary reference means and that you are talking about UFOs ( alien craft ) in the context of your substantiative claim, and that in the context of UFO reports you are referencing unidentified objects that are the subject of UFO reports.

Okay…let me define “mundane” for the purposes of this thread: it means that it is explicable in natural or technological terms according to the public fund of knowledge held by the scientific world. Something not mundane is then foreign to our common understanding of the natural and technological world. A UFO is then something that may defy common (natural or technological) explanation (a UFO may defy mundane explanation).

However, we also need to add “plausible” in there because the UFO debunkers have a habit of proposing implausible mundane explanations for UFOs. For example they may propose “balloon” as a mundane explanation, but if the object so explained in mundane terms was moving against the wind - then the mundane explanation so proposed becomes implausible – and we simply cannot allow the debunkers get away with stating that mundane explanations exist when they fail the test of plausibility. So, we state that a UFO, in the absence of natural or technological explanations, defies plausible mundane explanation…

That does not mean it is ET (or ET related), simply that we have no explanation for it.

Now of course we are free to hypothesise (or speculate) explanations – and ET may be one hypothetical explanation so proposed – but what if it was some secret technology or an undiscovered natural phenomenon? So each of those hypotheses needs testing - and if, after testing, according to the information we have, we cannot distinguish between hypothetical explanations (we have no evidence that would rule out alternate explanations) then we cannot say the explanation is one alternative to the exclusion of others.

When it comes to specific cases then, as far as I can tell, we only have circumstantial evidence to suggest the veracity of the ETH. But merely based on that circumstantial evidence, can we really distinguish between the ETH and secret technology or an undiscovered natural phenomenon - or indeed something else we have not thought of - or have actually discarded as perhaps too “unimaginable” or incredible (time travellers, or a manifestation of Jungian collective unconscious, etc)? That is the question we must constantly ask ourselves: It may look compelling on the face of it, but can we really distinguish between alternatives on the evidence we have?

ufology, if you believe we can, then please feel free to present cases and evidence to demonstrate that we can.

Re Project Twinkle:

Interesting link. I'll have to go through it in more detail. But the Skyhook balloon explanation does fit close enough with altitude estimates. Those things went up to 30Km high. The reason that they were illuminated may have been because at that altitude, the sun may have been shining on them even though the ground was dark. And the speed was undetermined, so perhaps they were just caught in some fast moving air current. We'd need to establish the dates and times and visibility of the sun at the altituded they were measured and compare that to the atmospheric wind speed at those altitudes on those days. But still, the green fireballs are an interesting part of ufology history. If they were non-mundane ( not of this world ), maybe they were meteors. I saw a huge greenish white meteor when I was a kid out in BC. The thing was even caught on film. It fit the green fireball description to a tee. Were any of these fireballs seen changing direction or speed significantly?

As for the skyhook balloons explanation, we must ask ourselves the plausibility question. Is it plausible that the observers could have made such a mistake? According to Dr Maccabee:

” Not likely. Their business was tracking fast moving rockets and calculating the trajectories of the rockets. As the writer of the above letter stated, "The individuals making these sightings are professional observers. Therefore I would rate their reliability superior."” (http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)​

As for the “green fireballs” – who knows – they remain a mystery. All we have is the following:

” After these had been observed many times in late 1948 and early 1949 Dr. Lincoln La Paz, a famous meteoricist (a scientist who studies meteors and meteorites), declared that they weren't normal meteors. He told the Air Force and the FBI (see Appendix) that if these weren't special devices resulting from our own (United States) secret research, then they could be Russian and in any event were a potential threat to our "vital installations" (FBI terminology) where nuclear weapon research was carried out.” (http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)​

Is it plausible that after the many sightings that were made, no-one could identify them as meteors? It seems implausible to me that such an identification was not made – but then that is merely my opinion…