I appreciate the respect, and I'd like to retain it. So I'm happy to work this through with you based on the evidence and the reasoning. Let's start with your claim that the term UFO is not a word, but rather and a noun and an acronym. When we look into this we find the following:
- Nouns are words: noun [nown] (plural nouns) noun naming word: a word or group of words used as the name of a class of people, places, or things, or of a particular person, place, or thing. ( Encarta ).
- Acronyms are words: ac·ro·nym [ákr?nim] (plural ac·ro·nyms) noun word formed from initials: a word formed from the initials or other parts of several words. ( Encarta )
Therefore "UFO" is a word and can quite correctly be called a word, or a noun, or an acronym. Additionally, the interpretations of acronyms are not dependent upon the mere literal definition of their constituent parts. For example the acronym ELINT stands for Electronic Intelligence, but the definition for ELINT has nothing to do with the intelligence of electronics. Similarly the acronym RADAR stands for radio detection and ranging, but it has nothing to do with detecting radios. In a proper definition the constituent parts of an acronym are part of the word origin, not the interpretation, and you'll find that better quality dictionaries organize their definitions in this manner. For example, consider this definition for UFO from Oxford:
The Oxford dictionary is but one of many official and non-official definitions and sources used to support the definition of UFO as used in the context of ufology. These are objective independent sources and therefore have nothing to do with being a "contrivance for the sake of supporting a specific hypothesis". Rather the word UFO ( alien craft ) is a well supported definition for the purpose of establishing a solid foundation from which to proceed. Furthermore, the word alien does not necessitate ET. Neither does it make any assumptions regarding the nature of objects in UFO reports. Many of the objects in UFO reports turn out to be something other than UFOs. So again, there is no "contrivance" going on. The "contrivance" argument is a common ( and incorrect ) assumption based on a lack of experience with proper context and usage.
In Donderi's case, he says, "Some UFOs are extraterrestrial vehicles", and this is perfectly acceptable. Some alien craft may be ET. Others may not. In my view we still don't know enough to be certain about where they all originate. However we do know enough to make a reasonably sound extrapolation based on accumulated observations and other evidence. When we do this, we invariably find that the ETH remains the top contender.
You are right, I was wrong. The term UFO in and of itself should and can be considered a legitimate word. Even though what UFO really indicates is a specific group of words that form an acronym representing a single type of noun that is perceived to be flying yet remains definitively of unknown identity and origin. IE. technological/organic/ethereal/etc. As I said, you are right, UFO is a word. When I refer to UFOs I am most of the time referring to what I guess to be some form of quasi technology in which a form of sole or multiple organic human controlled or navigated intelligence that we are currently familiar with, is NOT responsible. That, or what I honestly think is the case at very least 50% of the time, advanced, privately funded, or ultra black, human technology consisting of and being directly representative of, forms of working technology that mainstream science has zero working property familiarity with and therefore naturally denies.
All of what I just expanded on does in no way indicate that ANY UFOs are of ET origin. Some may be most certainly, but that much is a hypothesis at best. Simply a guess based on manifest projections of nothing more than sheer likelihood or probability. It's the same precise reasoning that well meaning human beings have used in times past in reference to reports of fairies, gods, demons, chariots, etc. These are temporally relevant contextual projections based on progressive time line modeled likelihood. Nothing more.
Please consider the following:
Why is the bulk of the Universe x% Space (tiny), and X% Dark matter (humongous) ? The later, much like UFOs speculatively controlled by a non human form of volition, we have never achieved a real and working familiar definitive understanding of or with? The point being, how do we know that this vast medium of substance is not navigable? We simply don't.
The term alien is a funny term. It's bandied about with routine and reckless derision in today's society. The very term "alien" smacks of some from a illegitimacy or "club outsider". I for one think "alternate" a far more reasonable and appropriate term. Especially with respect for non human intelligence as a volition or element of control.
Why is it so hard to accept that what we presently perceive as "Space, the final frontier" is merely (hypothetically of course!) representative of a tiny portion of a much larger multisentient species hosting environmental whole? Scientifically speaking we already know this to be the case apart from the "multisentient species" aspect , we just don't possess a working understanding of as much. But we do clearly understand how this very real unseen part effects and interacts with the native environment that we do readily understand and possess a working knowledge of.
If we used a fantastic (as in not definitively real/that which is merely possible, exactly like the ET hypothesis) and ultimately fictional analogical scenario to illustrate a hypothetical parallel, I would ask you to consider the vastness of our ocean's lifeforms.
If in 10,000 years from now, a select dolphin species achieves a truly remarkable level of intelligence wherein it builds technology that gives it free roaming navigable control over it's oceanic environment, are we now classifiable as aliens? Or are we merely a completely unique species occupying an alternate potion of a larger containing environment that the dolphin species shares? One in which we exercise an alternate sentient awareness and subsequent control? At this point the dolphins believe and accept readily that they possess a comprehensive knowledge of their environment, yet they are troubled deeply. (no pun intended)
Once in a while some wacko, and occasionally even a highly trained qualified observer, reports that they have witnessed strange unidentified objects in the outer most reaches of their environment that seemingly defy all the lawful scientific boundaries they have come to accept. What the heck is this!? It must be advanced aliens from a different ocean eh?
.
in other words it can't be us because we don't have the physics to explain how a craft can behave in certain ways.
