• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

The Fight for Ufology and UFOs Terms Thought Should Not Be?

loki467

Skilled Investigator
The Fight for Ufology and UFOs_________________________

Terms Thought Should Not Be?________________________


OK, so I suppose we have to have a conversation about these two things, the term UFOs “Unidentified Flying Objects” are associated with aliens in most people’s perception when they are spoken of, the image of a little grey guy with a big head pops into mind. So many would like to change the term to something else, usually this is from people who don’t buy into the E.T hypothesis or simply don’t know and remain open. I myself do not mind the term and what it is associated with. I research UFOs, abductions, astronomy, astrobiology, cattle mutilations and the likes, but the term UFOs holds something different to the general public rather then to those who investigate such things. To me the term is associated with something that is in the sky that is anomalies, I do not draw conclusions but rather look at the evidence. I do not belong to a group like MUFON or any others but am on my own. So why do we care as people who look into and investigate things, what the interpretation of how the public views the Term UFOs means? Well we shouldn’t. The term UFOs is not only E.Ts and aliens anymore but as some view paranormal/ inter-dimensional.

So, my argument is that changing this term is not going to help anything, in fact it may make things worse, I have found by listening to thousands of podcasts over the years, reading articles, reading books and conducting research that an argument can be made that some people push the Inter-dimensional hypothesis as much as people push the E.T hypothesis, if not more in fact. The answer is it is all speculation and jumping to any conclusion is foolish without enough data and evidence and is unscientific in any fashion you view the term science. The days of Dr. J. Allen Hynek are over to some, nowadays we just have people who read reports and just speculate off of that rather then investigate anything the old-fashioned way, and incorporate some new ways, but rather they insult the people attempting to do that and we have terms like nuts and bolts as an example. All I can say is can anyone conclusively prove that not to be the case rather than say something outlandish? Not really instead we get speculation and oddly name calling and beat up and trash some old guys work in the study of UFOs he has spent a lifetime working on.

Now the term UFOLOGY as is has been come to be known as well I will say I believe the term came about to bring more validity to the subject and study of UFOs. A good example of this can be found in the book “Evolutionary Ufology by Jordan Hoffer”. Jordan Hoffer is a former teacher of anthropology and evolution, he takes this to the field of UFOs and abductions and speculates on the evolution of the greys from a scientific view in a fun kind of way. Jordan Hoffer takes the accounts of abductees and attempts to speculate as well in his book “Little Grey Bastards”. The author knows his stuff, but he brings a quite scientific credibility to the field of UFOs and abductions. Many dislikes this term due to the public association with aliens as well once you explain to them what “Ufology” means, iv had to run into this scenario myself. That being said why is there a big thing about the term UFOs and Ufology? Because some in the field also equate these terms with E.Ts and aliens as well due to public perceptions as argued of why they are bad terms. My argument is we all perceive things the way we want, as well as take the information we have gathered to draw our own hypothesis and want a less all-encompassing term.


My finale words on this for the time being are I don’t mind either term due to the fact that that unidentified flying objects are what I investigate without conclusion and the term Ufology is a personal term for all the work and effort I have put into my research for over 10 years now, I am a Ufologist, I study the unexplained whither E.T, inter-dimensional, time traveler or whatever other theories arise. You may look at the phenomena the way you wish but Don’t Neil DeGrasse Tyson us and attempt do make Ufology and UFOs into Pluto, no matter how much those who have an issue want"and I could name a few authors right off the bat" its not up to you what terms are used. Use what you wish. At a later date I will approach the inter-dimensional hypothesis and address that but for now here you are.





Hynak-Quote.jpg
 
Last edited:
I don't really care about the terminology - people understand what we're talking about, generally, without getting technical about the terms that we use. In the UK they prefer UAP (unidentified aerial phenomenon), in the States UFO is far more common, and lately we've been hearing the term AAV (anomalous aerial vehicle). I actually prefer AAV for a few reasons. UFO and UAP cover the whole range of unidentified things in the sky, but that includes all kinds of stuff - too much stuff. "AAV" specifies that we're talking about anomalous vehicles in the sky, and I like that specificity because that's what I mean when I say "UFO." But in addition to being too general, the term "UFO" has also been horrifically tainted by decades of ridicule in the press, so nowadays a lot of people associate "UFO" with "UFO nut" (unfortunately, because probably >90% of the people interested in the phenomenon are very rational and thoughtful about it).

And we can't be 100% sure about the origin of these exotic devices operating in our airspace from time to time (origin is impossible to ascertain without very specific information that we just have no way of getting), but it seems obvious to me that the ETH is the leading hypothesis. These devices are arriving from somewhere, and it's virtually impossible for them to originate on present-day Earth, because a technologically advanced civilization sharing this planet with us would be very hard to hide. And nobody has ever proposed a rational explanation for the term "interdimensional" that's scientifically viable (it is possible that there are higher dimensions, but if there are, they're not "separate realities" coexisting with our own somehow: higher dimension are simply additional directions in space and/or time, so you can't hide anything in them).

The ETH makes perfect sense though. We've recently learned that 22% of all stars are orbited by warm Earth-like worlds, so there are over 40 billion of them in our galaxy alone, and over 40 billion trillion of them in the observable universe. And we've learned that water and amino acids and so forth are common throughout space and planetary systems in particular. So it's easy to see that the likelihood of alien life on other worlds, and even intelligent alien life, is statistically very high. And the ETH doesn't demand new physics to explain the origin question. We even have a theoretical physics model for faster-than-like travel via a metric propulsion concept to explain how they might get here rapidly and without any time dilation effects. So it seems to me that the ETH is the only fully credible hypothesis on the table. The main reason why some people don't like it appears to be that they find it to be too mundane. But in the realm of analytical reasoning, the mundane explanation is most likely to be the correct one.
 
I don't think it would be proper diplomatic protocol, to use the term "UFO," in a peaceful confrontation with actual ET aliens. It might be alright in such a ET meeting or radio contact to pronounce the letters U.F.O. to an alien entity, but to say the word U-FO in such a situation, might be interpreted by the alien as a --- you-foe --- translation; which might raise some eyebrows in such a confrontation.

Otherwise...I don't mind if you say the word --- UFO --- but I tend to shy away from saying it, based on the possibility that I, or someone else, might possibly have a "oops" situation with an actual ET alien contact.

Ufology is still an okay term with me or anybody else to use, but I prefer the term UAP, AAV, flying saucer, fireball, foo fighter, etc. etc. to use in any other documented or speaking terms.

The "UFO" word debate has been rehashed over the years, and I was first warned about using the term...with an actual ET alien contact --- from others --- some years ago.
 
Last edited:
I do have a terminological gripe. We're calling the white smooth ones from the Nimitz incident "Tic Tacs." Breath mints are products with negligible nutritional value that we consume when our disgusting saliva and tooth-filled mouths become colonized with bacteria and begin to generate unpleasant odors normally associated with decomposing organic matter. It's like if we visited a primitive alien civilization on another planet or dimension and they named us after their equivalent of tampons or urinal cakes.

How about we just keep referring to them as Nimitz UFOs? Similar UFOs encountered in the future can be called Nimitz-like. As soon as they stop being unidentified, we can give them a proper name. They never need to be given a name that's a registered trademark.

As for the term UFO, I feel like it's a matter of context. You have to be specific when talking about UFOs. It's like complaining that both bad movies and good movies are called movies. If you care about the distinction, make the distinction.

We may be on the verge of identifying some UFOs, though. Soon, we'll have a bigger problem: when people use the word UFO, will they be referring to the concept of what UFOs actually turned out to be, to other UFOs that are still unidentified, or to fictional UFOs from pop culture?
 
I agree with all three of you , I wrote this little essay/rant in refeence to a largel prolific writer and author as well as a couple others trying to push this. If rather not name drop them but I commented somthing similar in an article by the other in question on the mysterious universes articles section. I also believe it could be of an E.T origin and do not jump to conclusion do to the fact that we barely understand physics or space on over own, for example no one would have assumed that our genes change in space which is now a fact, to what degree we don' know but I hypothesized that as well. And you are correct, I do believe we cant define interdiminsional but unfortunately alot do try, which is why I'm so opposed t just jumping to that conclusion, even many UFOLOGIST do so sadly
 
Last edited:
Back
Top