Time to junk the term "UFO"?

Gawdzilla · 11th November 2011, 04:12 AM

I propose we use the NYIO instead of UFO. "Not Yet Identified Objects" is more accurate, I believe. We could also use IBIASFO?

EHocking · 11th November 2011, 05:09 AM

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

I propose we use the NYIO instead of UFO. "Not Yet Identified Objects" is more accurate, I believe.

I disagree.

Even if we come up with plausible explanations for a sighting, such as a blimp.
And even if practically everyone agrees that the most likely thing seen was a blimp.

All we can say is that the most likely explanation is that it was a blimp.

Without evidence, though, it is still unidentified, and indeed, unidentifiable, since you will never be able to recreate a sighting.

UFO covers this nicely, whereas "Not Yet", would need to also cover, "Not Likely To", and "Not Ever" as well.

Gawdzilla · 11th November 2011, 05:16 AM

Originally Posted by EHocking

I disagree.

Even if we come up with plausible explanations for a sighting, such as a blimp.
And even if practically everyone agrees that the most likely thing seen was a blimp.

All we can say is that the most likely explanation is that it was a blimp.

Without evidence, though, it is still unidentified, and indeed, unidentifiable, since you will never be able to recreate a sighting.

UFO covers this nicely, whereas "Not Yet", would need to also cover, "Not Likely To", and "Not Ever" as well.

I think it makes it clear that the possibility of being identified is there. As the Believers routinely use UFO for "alien spacecraft" I think this is a means of countering that euphemism.

EHocking · 11th November 2011, 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

I think it makes it clear that the possibility of being identified is there. As the Believers routinely use UFO for "alien spacecraft" I think this is a means of countering that euphemism.

My argument is that "Unidentified" covers all tense of the acronym; past, present and future.

So a much more useful, universal, concise and precise acronym is still UFO.

ETA: IFO, being the its "antonym".

Jack by the hedge · 11th November 2011, 05:30 AM

Whether the phenomenon was correctly identified or not is a judgement call. Just call it a "thing".

Declaring that an unidentified thing is flying (when it might very well be a planet) is an unjustified assumption. All you can say for sure is that it's up in the sky.

So I say we should replace Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) with Thing In The Sky (TITS). The new acronym might encourage a whole new generation of dedicated spotters.

Gawdzilla · 11th November 2011, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by EHocking

My argument is that "Unidentified" covers all tense of the acronym; past, present and future.

So a much more useful, universal, concise and precise acronym is still UFO.

ETA: IFO, being the its "antonym".

I just looking to make it more explicit.

EHocking · 11th November 2011, 05:55 AM

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

I just looking to make it more explicit.

The problem I have is that "Not Yet", besides implying that it can/will be identified, is more implicit than explicit, since it would exclude all sightings that can not, or may never be, be identified.

Marcus · 11th November 2011, 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

I propose we use the NYIO instead of UFO. "Not Yet Identified Objects" is more accurate, I believe. We could also use IBIASFO?

UFO works fine for objects that are unidentified, we really just need to add another term for the creduloids that are really talking about aliens, UFAO has worked well in some of the threads.

Gawdzilla · 11th November 2011, 06:02 AM

Originally Posted by EHocking

The problem I have is that "Not Yet", besides implying that it can/will be identified, is more implicit than explicit, since it would exclude all sightings that can not, or may never be, be identified.

Okay, then. I'll use it, you do what makes you comfortable.

Marduk · 11th November 2011, 06:23 AM

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Whether the phenomenon was correctly identified or not is a judgement call. Just call it a "thing".
.

[shatner]"there's some thing, on the wing"[/shatner]

EHocking · 11th November 2011, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by Marduk

[shatner]"there's some thing, on the wing"[/shatner]"

We come in peace, shoot to kill"...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

EHocking · 11th November 2011, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

Okay, then. I'll use it, you do what makes you comfortable.

You'll be in some good company with others that wish to redefine the acronym.

Explorer · 11th November 2011, 07:13 AM

What is wrong with UAO, i.e. "Unspecific Aerial Object" Or should be Non-specific", in which case, NAO

By taking out unidentified, it still allows for later confirmed identification, without saying that it is actually likely to be identified, and Aerial takes out "Flying" indicating intelligent control.

EHocking · 11th November 2011, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by Explorer

What is wrong with UAO, i.e. "Unspecific Aerial Object" Or should be Non-specific", in which case, NAO

By taking out unidentified, it still allows for later confirmed identification, without saying that it is actually likely to be identified, and Aerial takes out "Flying" indicating intelligent control.

And once identified, what would and UAO or NAO become?

What is the difference between using UFO and IFO in this context?

Jack by the hedge · 11th November 2011, 07:42 AM

How about What On Earth Was That Thing (WTFWTT)?

caniswalensis · 11th November 2011, 08:01 AM

While I agree mostly with EHocking on his points, I think this is a useful discussion to have.

I do deplore the use of the acronym 'UFO' as a synonym for 'alien craft', but I do not think the problem is serious enough to really worry about.

For the sake of discussion, here is my take:

'Unidentified' works well enough. It is accurate, and does not ommit the possibility of later identification.

'Flying' is an assumption. Things may be located in the sky, without actually having the power of flight.

'Object' is another assumption. People may percieve things visually that are not actuual objects.

If we were going to change the acronym, I think something like 'Unidentified Visual sighting' would be more accurate. It does not assume that the veiwer is witnessing a particular type of thing with any specific properties. Lacking any assumption, it distances itself from 'alien craft' by a wider margin.

U.V.S. anyone?

GT/CS · 11th November 2011, 08:07 AM

UVS would also work for bigfoot sightings!

EHocking · 11th November 2011, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by caniswalensis

While I agree mostly with EHocking on his points, I think this is a useful discussion to have.

I do deplore the use of the acronym 'UFO' as a synonym for 'alien craft', but I do not think the problem is serious enough to really worry about.

I'm in agreement with both the above - that's why I'm participating in the chat.

Quote:

For the sake of discussion, here is my take:

'Unidentified' works well enough. It is accurate, and does not ommit the possibility of later identification.

'Flying' is an assumption. Things may be located in the sky, without actually having the power of flight.

'Object' is another assumption. People may percieve things visually that are not actuual objects.

If we were going to change the acronym, I think something like 'Unidentified Visual sighting' would be more accurate.

But rather redundant, don't you think? A "visual" "sighting"?

In order to not seem to be a nay-saying meanyhead

Unidentified Aerial Sighting?
UAS pronounced "You Arse" (or "You Ass" for our USAan friends).

I Ratant · 11th November 2011, 08:30 AM

I like TITS...
.
.
..
wrong thread?

caniswalensis · 11th November 2011, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by EHocking

I'm in agreement with both the above - that's why I'm participating in the chat.But rather redundant, don't you think? A "visual" "sighting"?

In order to not seem to be a nay-saying meanyhead

Unidentified Aerial Sighting?
UAS pronounced "You Arse" (or "You Ass" for our USAan friends).

You are right, that's is a bit redundant. What about 'Unidentified Visual Experience', a UVE? Or perhaps better, 'Unexplained Visual Experience'? The use of the word experience creates even more distance between the reported sighting and an assumption of reality.

Your suggestion of UAS is very good too. It is perfectly descriptive without making assumptions. I personally dislike the ‘you ass’ pronunciation, though. It will be used to mock people that see & report something they do not understand. I see no need for that.

At the end of the day, 'UVE' may not be descriptive enough.

John Albert · 11th November 2011, 09:09 AM

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

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

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

LTC8K6 · 11th November 2011, 09:30 AM

AWH

Airborne What in Hell

Jack by the hedge · 11th November 2011, 10:00 AM

STINK: Something Tangible, Identity Not Known.

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

John Albert · 11th November 2011, 10:19 AM

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

"OMG I saw a TITS!"

Nobody talks like that. It just sounds stupid.

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

"OMG! I saw some TITS!"

Robrob · 11th November 2011, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Declaring that an unidentified thing is flying (when it might very well be a planet) is an unjustified assumption. All you can say for sure is that it's up in the sky.

I agree the term "flying" is inaccurate and has probably led to all kinds of crazy misconceptions.

Explorer · 11th November 2011, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by EHocking

And once identified, what would and UAO or NAO become?

What is the difference between using UFO and IFO in this context?

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

See my original post, for the advantages of this terminology..

Jack by the hedge · 11th November 2011, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by John Albert

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

"OMG I saw a TITS!"

Nobody talks like that. It just sounds stupid.

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

"OMG! I saw some TITS!"

<Cop> Can you explain what you're doing here at this time with those binoculars, sir?
<UFO nut> Yes, officer, I was hoping to spot some... Uh, I was just looking for... Umm. No. Actually, no, I can't.

Brian-M · 11th November 2011, 01:17 PM

The only problem I see with UFO is that the U is mostly redundant. You could just as easily leave it out. In most cases, simply describing something as a "flying object" instead of a UFO would work just as well, while at the same time removing any hint of the mysterious that the word "unidentified" evokes.

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

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

The only problem is, some people might confuse Non-Terrestrial with Extra-Terrestrial.

Jungle Jim · 11th November 2011, 01:37 PM

Well this all well and good, but even if a consensus could be reached in this thread as to a new acronym, how would it be introduced to the public at large? While UFO may not be accurate in all circumstances, it has 100% public awareness.

Jack by the hedge · 11th November 2011, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Jungle Jim

Well this all well and good, but even if a consensus could be reached in this thread as to a new acronym, how would it be introduced to the public at large? While UFO may not be accurate in all circumstances, it has 100% public awareness.

That's the real beauty of having an acronym which is a puerile joke. You only need to get it used in an episode of South Park and the internet will do the job for you.

yeti101 · 12th November 2011, 02:34 AM

the british ministry of defense always used the term UAP. Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon.

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

Ufologists won't like UAP they much prefer UFO because it leads their target audience down a certain path of thinking. UFO is now a substitute for "alien spaceship" in the minds of believers.

SezMe · 12th November 2011, 03:23 AM

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

I propose we use the NYIO instead of UFO. "Not Yet Identified Objects" is more accurate, I believe. We could also use IBIASFO?

I disagree. How about just ignoring the idiots that try to ascribe some other connotation to "UFO" other than "unidentified".

Gawdzilla · 12th November 2011, 04:09 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

I disagree. How about just ignoring the idiots that try to ascribe some other connotation to "UFO" other than "unidentified".

And thus letting them go unchallenged? If that works for you, fine.

Malfie Henpox · 12th November 2011, 04:22 AM

How about Currently Unclassified, Non Terrestrial.

That covers all bases, right?

Gawdzilla · 12th November 2011, 04:29 AM

Originally Posted by Malfie Henpox

How about Currently Unclassified, Non Terrestrial.

That covers all bases, right?

Currently Unknown. The "non-terrestrial" is not proven.

Malfie Henpox · 12th November 2011, 04:35 AM

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

Currently Unknown. The "non-terrestrial" is not proven.

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

Currently Unclassified, Not Terrestrial.

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

As in: "Look at those couple of ***** up there!"

Gawdzilla · 12th November 2011, 04:43 AM

Originally Posted by Malfie Henpox

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

Currently Unclassified, Not Terrestrial.

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

As in: "Look at those couple of ***** up there!"

I'd go with Currently Unclassified, Aerial. But the "not terrestrial" is just going to feed the lunatics. And that is something I'm trying to get away from.

Jack by the hedge · 12th November 2011, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by Malfie Henpox

How about Currently Unclassified, Non Terrestrial.

That covers all bases, right?

Winner.

23_Tauri · 12th November 2011, 06:15 AM

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

So I say we should replace Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) with Thing In The Sky (TITS). The new acronym might encourage a whole new generation of dedicated spotters.

Then we'd have

Things In The Sky
and
Alien Space Ships*

*see UFOs The Research, The Evidence thread for the origin of ASSes.

Greedo · 12th November 2011, 06:41 AM

In my opinion, there's no need for a change. Let the nuts have their "U-F-O"
I, as a skeptic simply say the whole term - Unidentified Flying Object. That clearly states the "object" is unidentified. It's not perfect (we don't know if it was actually an object and so on) but it works. I like UAP too.

11th November 2011, 04:12 AM	#1
Gawdzilla 121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri. Posts: 13,510	Time to junk the term "UFO"? I propose we use the NYIO instead of UFO. "Not Yet Identified Objects" is more accurate, I believe. We could also use IBIASFO?
	__________________ World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Kido Butai did not transmit. 木戸舞台は、無線メッセージを送信しませんでした

11th November 2011, 05:09 AM	#2
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	Originally Posted by Gawdzilla I propose we use the NYIO instead of UFO. "Not Yet Identified Objects" is more accurate, I believe. I disagree. Even if we come up with plausible explanations for a sighting, such as a blimp. And even if practically everyone agrees that the most likely thing seen was a blimp. All we can say is that the most likely explanation is that it was a blimp. Without evidence, though, it is still unidentified, and indeed, unidentifiable, since you will never be able to recreate a sighting. UFO covers this nicely, whereas "Not Yet", would need to also cover, "Not Likely To", and "Not Ever" as well.
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage

11th November 2011, 05:16 AM	#3
Gawdzilla 121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri. Posts: 13,510	Originally Posted by EHocking I disagree. Even if we come up with plausible explanations for a sighting, such as a blimp. And even if practically everyone agrees that the most likely thing seen was a blimp. All we can say is that the most likely explanation is that it was a blimp. Without evidence, though, it is still unidentified, and indeed, unidentifiable, since you will never be able to recreate a sighting. UFO covers this nicely, whereas "Not Yet", would need to also cover, "Not Likely To", and "Not Ever" as well. I think it makes it clear that the possibility of being identified is there. As the Believers routinely use UFO for "alien spacecraft" I think this is a means of countering that euphemism.
	__________________ World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Kido Butai did not transmit. 木戸舞台は、無線メッセージを送信しませんでした

11th November 2011, 05:19 AM	#4
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	Originally Posted by Gawdzilla I think it makes it clear that the possibility of being identified is there. As the Believers routinely use UFO for "alien spacecraft" I think this is a means of countering that euphemism. My argument is that "Unidentified" covers all tense of the acronym; past, present and future. So a much more useful, universal, concise and precise acronym is still UFO. ETA: IFO, being the its "antonym".
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage Last edited by EHocking; 11th November 2011 at 05:21 AM.

11th November 2011, 05:30 AM	#5
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,421	Whether the phenomenon was correctly identified or not is a judgement call. Just call it a "thing". Declaring that an unidentified thing is flying (when it might very well be a planet) is an unjustified assumption. All you can say for sure is that it's up in the sky. So I say we should replace Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) with Thing In The Sky (TITS). The new acronym might encourage a whole new generation of dedicated spotters.
	Last edited by Jack by the hedge; 11th November 2011 at 07:06 AM.

11th November 2011, 05:50 AM	#6
Gawdzilla 121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri. Posts: 13,510	Originally Posted by EHocking My argument is that "Unidentified" covers all tense of the acronym; past, present and future. So a much more useful, universal, concise and precise acronym is still UFO. ETA: IFO, being the its "antonym". I just looking to make it more explicit.
	__________________ World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Kido Butai did not transmit. 木戸舞台は、無線メッセージを送信しませんでした

11th November 2011, 05:55 AM	#7
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	Originally Posted by Gawdzilla I just looking to make it more explicit. The problem I have is that "Not Yet", besides implying that it can/will be identified, is more implicit than explicit, since it would exclude all sightings that can not, or may never be, be identified.
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage

11th November 2011, 05:56 AM	#8
Marcus Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Austin Posts: 1,841	Originally Posted by Gawdzilla I propose we use the NYIO instead of UFO. "Not Yet Identified Objects" is more accurate, I believe. We could also use IBIASFO? UFO works fine for objects that are unidentified, we really just need to add another term for the creduloids that are really talking about aliens, UFAO has worked well in some of the threads.

11th November 2011, 06:02 AM	#9
Gawdzilla 121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri. Posts: 13,510	Originally Posted by EHocking The problem I have is that "Not Yet", besides implying that it can/will be identified, is more implicit than explicit, since it would exclude all sightings that can not, or may never be, be identified. Okay, then. I'll use it, you do what makes you comfortable.
	__________________ World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Kido Butai did not transmit. 木戸舞台は、無線メッセージを送信しませんでした

11th November 2011, 06:23 AM	#10
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge Whether the phenomenon was correctly identified or not is a judgement call. Just call it a "thing". . [shatner]"there's some thing, on the wing"[/shatner]

11th November 2011, 07:09 AM	#12
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	Originally Posted by Gawdzilla Okay, then. I'll use it, you do what makes you comfortable. You'll be in some good company with others that wish to redefine the acronym.
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage

11th November 2011, 07:13 AM	#13
Explorer Muse Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 959	What is wrong with UAO, i.e. "Unspecific Aerial Object" Or should be Non-specific", in which case, NAO By taking out unidentified, it still allows for later confirmed identification, without saying that it is actually likely to be identified, and Aerial takes out "Flying" indicating intelligent control.
Explorer Muse Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 959	Last edited by Explorer; 11th November 2011 at 07:23 AM.

11th November 2011, 07:27 AM	#14
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	Originally Posted by Explorer What is wrong with UAO, i.e. "Unspecific Aerial Object" Or should be Non-specific", in which case, NAO By taking out unidentified, it still allows for later confirmed identification, without saying that it is actually likely to be identified, and Aerial takes out "Flying" indicating intelligent control. And once identified, what would and UAO or NAO become? What is the difference between using UFO and IFO in this context?
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage

11th November 2011, 07:42 AM	#15
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,421	How about What On Earth Was That Thing (WTFWTT)?

11th November 2011, 08:01 AM	#16
caniswalensis Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 2,567	While I agree mostly with EHocking on his points, I think this is a useful discussion to have. I do deplore the use of the acronym 'UFO' as a synonym for 'alien craft', but I do not think the problem is serious enough to really worry about. For the sake of discussion, here is my take: 'Unidentified' works well enough. It is accurate, and does not ommit the possibility of later identification. 'Flying' is an assumption. Things may be located in the sky, without actually having the power of flight. 'Object' is another assumption. People may percieve things visually that are not actuual objects. If we were going to change the acronym, I think something like 'Unidentified Visual sighting' would be more accurate. It does not assume that the veiwer is witnessing a particular type of thing with any specific properties. Lacking any assumption, it distances itself from 'alien craft' by a wider margin. U.V.S. anyone?
	__________________ "...The chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs. Them -- the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive. It does not get our message across. It condemns us to permanent minority status." - Carl Sagan

11th November 2011, 08:07 AM	#17
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,592	UVS would also work for bigfoot sightings!
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,592	__________________ SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

11th November 2011, 08:15 AM	#18
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	Originally Posted by caniswalensis While I agree mostly with EHocking on his points, I think this is a useful discussion to have. I do deplore the use of the acronym 'UFO' as a synonym for 'alien craft', but I do not think the problem is serious enough to really worry about. I'm in agreement with both the above - that's why I'm participating in the chat. Quote: For the sake of discussion, here is my take: 'Unidentified' works well enough. It is accurate, and does not ommit the possibility of later identification. 'Flying' is an assumption. Things may be located in the sky, without actually having the power of flight. 'Object' is another assumption. People may percieve things visually that are not actuual objects. If we were going to change the acronym, I think something like 'Unidentified Visual sighting' would be more accurate. But rather redundant, don't you think? A "visual" "sighting"? In order to not seem to be a nay-saying meanyhead Unidentified Aerial Sighting? UAS pronounced "You Arse" (or "You Ass" for our USAan friends).
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage

11th November 2011, 08:30 AM	#19
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	I like TITS... . . .. wrong thread?

11th November 2011, 08:34 AM	#20
caniswalensis Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 2,567	Originally Posted by EHocking I'm in agreement with both the above - that's why I'm participating in the chat.But rather redundant, don't you think? A "visual" "sighting"? In order to not seem to be a nay-saying meanyhead Unidentified Aerial Sighting? UAS pronounced "You Arse" (or "You Ass" for our USAan friends). You are right, that's is a bit redundant. What about 'Unidentified Visual Experience', a UVE? Or perhaps better, 'Unexplained Visual Experience'? The use of the word experience creates even more distance between the reported sighting and an assumption of reality. Your suggestion of UAS is very good too. It is perfectly descriptive without making assumptions. I personally dislike the ‘you ass’ pronunciation, though. It will be used to mock people that see & report something they do not understand. I see no need for that. At the end of the day, 'UVE' may not be descriptive enough.
	__________________ "...The chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs. Them -- the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive. It does not get our message across. It condemns us to permanent minority status." - Carl Sagan Last edited by caniswalensis; 11th November 2011 at 08:35 AM.

11th November 2011, 09:09 AM	#21
John Albert Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,143	With he acronym "UFO," the word "unidentified" is not the problem. Calling them "not yet identified" implies that they will be identified at some point in the future, which is not necessarily true. If there isn't enough information about a given object at the time of the sighting and enough cannot be uncovered within a few days or weeks immediately afterward, then there will probably never be enough to make a reliable identification. If anything, the words "flying object" should be replaced because a large number of UFOs have turned out not to be flying, nor even objects in a material sense. "Aerial sighting" works rather better in my opinion.
John Albert Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,143	__________________ “In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.” —Mark Twain

11th November 2011, 09:30 AM	#22
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,674	AWH Airborne What in Hell
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

11th November 2011, 10:00 AM	#23
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,421	STINK: Something Tangible, Identity Not Known. (But I too still like TITS: Thing In The Sky)
	Last edited by Jack by the hedge; 11th November 2011 at 10:02 AM.

11th November 2011, 10:19 AM	#24
John Albert Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,143	But then you run into the problem of people saying things like: "OMG I saw a TITS!" Nobody talks like that. It just sounds stupid. The only way TITS would really work is in the plural: "OMG! I saw some TITS!"
John Albert Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,143	__________________ “In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.” —Mark Twain

11th November 2011, 11:25 AM	#25
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660	Quote: Declaring that an unidentified thing is flying (when it might very well be a planet) is an unjustified assumption. All you can say for sure is that it's up in the sky. I agree the term "flying" is inaccurate and has probably led to all kinds of crazy misconceptions.
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660

11th November 2011, 11:55 AM	#26
Explorer Muse Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 959	Originally Posted by EHocking And once identified, what would and UAO or NAO become? What is the difference between using UFO and IFO in this context? Once identified, it would become an SAO, i.e. a Specific or Specified Aerial Object. See my original post, for the advantages of this terminology..
Explorer Muse Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 959

11th November 2011, 12:11 PM	#27
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,421	Originally Posted by John Albert But then you run into the problem of people saying things like: "OMG I saw a TITS!" Nobody talks like that. It just sounds stupid. The only way TITS would really work is in the plural: "OMG! I saw some TITS!" <Cop> Can you explain what you're doing here at this time with those binoculars, sir? <UFO nut> Yes, officer, I was hoping to spot some... Uh, I was just looking for... Umm. No. Actually, no, I can't.

11th November 2011, 01:17 PM	#28
Brian-M Daydreamer Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Downunder Posts: 4,276	The only problem I see with UFO is that the U is mostly redundant. You could just as easily leave it out. In most cases, simply describing something as a "flying object" instead of a UFO would work just as well, while at the same time removing any hint of the mysterious that the word "unidentified" evokes. But as Jack by the hedge points out, just because it's in the sky doesn't mean it's flying. It could be in space, like a planet or satellite. It could be floating, like a blimp. It could be falling like a skydiver. All we know is that it's not on the ground. I suggest we replace UFO with NTO; "Non-Terrestrial Object". The only problem is, some people might confuse Non-Terrestrial with Extra-Terrestrial.
	__________________ "That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim Last edited by Brian-M; 11th November 2011 at 01:21 PM.

11th November 2011, 01:37 PM	#29
Jungle Jim Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 630	Well this all well and good, but even if a consensus could be reached in this thread as to a new acronym, how would it be introduced to the public at large? While UFO may not be accurate in all circumstances, it has 100% public awareness.
Jungle Jim Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 630

11th November 2011, 01:44 PM	#30
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,421	Originally Posted by Jungle Jim Well this all well and good, but even if a consensus could be reached in this thread as to a new acronym, how would it be introduced to the public at large? While UFO may not be accurate in all circumstances, it has 100% public awareness. That's the real beauty of having an acronym which is a puerile joke. You only need to get it used in an episode of South Park and the internet will do the job for you.

12th November 2011, 02:34 AM	#31
yeti101 Scholar Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 105	the british ministry of defense always used the term UAP. Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon. This is much better than UFO because the words "flying" indicate some form of propulsion and "object" implies something solid. Which is not always the case e.g light reflections & ball lighting. Ufologists won't like UAP they much prefer UFO because it leads their target audience down a certain path of thinking. UFO is now a substitute for "alien spaceship" in the minds of believers.
yeti101 Scholar Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 105

12th November 2011, 03:23 AM	#32
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,367	Originally Posted by Gawdzilla I propose we use the NYIO instead of UFO. "Not Yet Identified Objects" is more accurate, I believe. We could also use IBIASFO? I disagree. How about just ignoring the idiots that try to ascribe some other connotation to "UFO" other than "unidentified".

12th November 2011, 04:09 AM	#33
Gawdzilla 121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri. Posts: 13,510	Originally Posted by SezMe I disagree. How about just ignoring the idiots that try to ascribe some other connotation to "UFO" other than "unidentified". And thus letting them go unchallenged? If that works for you, fine.
	__________________ World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Kido Butai did not transmit. 木戸舞台は、無線メッセージを送信しませんでした

12th November 2011, 04:22 AM	#34
Malfie Henpox Banned Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 3,812	How about Currently Unclassified, Non Terrestrial. That covers all bases, right?

12th November 2011, 04:29 AM	#35
Gawdzilla 121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri. Posts: 13,510	Originally Posted by Malfie Henpox How about Currently Unclassified, Non Terrestrial. That covers all bases, right? Currently Unknown. The "non-terrestrial" is not proven.
	__________________ World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Kido Butai did not transmit. 木戸舞台は、無線メッセージを送信しませんでした

12th November 2011, 04:35 AM	#36
Malfie Henpox Banned Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 3,812	Originally Posted by Gawdzilla Currently Unknown. The "non-terrestrial" is not proven. Surely if it's in the sky, it's non terrestrial? (no hyphen) And it might be known, but not classified. I suppose Not terrestrial works better. Currently Unclassified, Not Terrestrial. That's what I'm using from now on. As in: "Look at those couple of ***** up there!"
	Last edited by Malfie Henpox; 12th November 2011 at 04:36 AM.