UFOs Are Real And Scientific

Kahalachan · 1st September 2007, 11:48 AM

It's IFOs that I have a problem with.

If someone says "I can't identify that flying object", it's wonderfully scientific. We await evidence and reason to identify that object.

When people say "I identify that object is an alien spaceship" is when I have issues.

I know this is just semantics

Civilized Worm · 1st September 2007, 02:38 PM

Couldn't agree more!

Warge · 1st September 2007, 02:42 PM

I agree wholeheartedly. A UFO can be anything - a plane, a bird, a star - and to be fair, an alien spaceship even if it's very unlikely.

I wonder how it came to be that UFO = alien spaceship?

rjh01 · 1st September 2007, 03:45 PM

Because people believe
Unknown = my pet theory

Monza · 1st September 2007, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Warge

I agree wholeheartedly. A UFO can be anything - a plane, a bird, a star - and to be fair, an alien spaceship even if it's very unlikely.

I wonder how it came to be that UFO = alien spaceship?

It is quite a large leap to go from "strange lights in the sky" to "a spacecraft piloted by beings from another galaxy". It's amazing how so many people become instant experts in astronomy and aircraft. "No, it couldn;t have been Venus or an ultra-light aircraft."

I have always wondered why more astronomers don't report UFO sightings. Here are people who make a living looking at the sky. And yet, they don't tend to report more UFO sightings than other occupations. Could it be that they are more apt to correctly identify strange lights and aerial phenomena?

Denial · 2nd September 2007, 08:59 AM

I totally agree with the OP. I suspect the term UFO is corrupted beyond salvation, though. You can hardly say UFO without people immediately thinking of small green men/reptilians/Pierce Brosnan's head on a dog.

JoeTheJuggler · 2nd September 2007, 10:51 AM

OK, I'll take on the OP's premise.

Aside from the semantic issue that terms mean what they do by convention (and it does seem more and more conventional these days to let "UFO" stand as a short hand for "alien space craft"--I've even seen that usage in a recent Skeptical Inquirer), there is the following.

At least a great number of "UFOs" are not real in that they are not Unidentified Flying Objects.

Venus or the Moon can not in any realistic way be said to be "flying" objects. Reflections and other strange optical illusions can't even be said to be "objects". Even magnesium flares when seen as hovering UFOs, aside from the launch, would more accurately be described as falling objects not flying.

Swamp gas or related sorts of phenomena similarly are not flying.

So seeing some apparent light in the sky and jumping to the term UFO is already claiming more knowledge than is warranted in most cases. (Since the "U" is undisputed, I'd say that leap is almost always unwarranted. Without knowing what you're seeing, there's really no way to know for sure much of anything about it.)

1st September 2007, 11:48 AM	#1
Kahalachan Illuminator Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 3,250	UFOs Are Real And Scientific It's IFOs that I have a problem with. If someone says "I can't identify that flying object", it's wonderfully scientific. We await evidence and reason to identify that object. When people say "I identify that object is an alien spaceship" is when I have issues. I know this is just semantics
Kahalachan Illuminator Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 3,250	__________________ For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan

1st September 2007, 02:38 PM	#2
Civilized Worm The Ayatollah of Rock and Rolla Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Glasgow, Scotland Posts: 1,718	Couldn't agree more!
	__________________ "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens Thanks to Kilgore Trout and PaulHoff for the animated avatar.

1st September 2007, 02:42 PM	#3
Warge Thinker Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 161	I agree wholeheartedly. A UFO can be anything - a plane, a bird, a star - and to be fair, an alien spaceship even if it's very unlikely. I wonder how it came to be that UFO = alien spaceship?
Warge Thinker Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 161

1st September 2007, 03:45 PM	#4
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 17,162	Because people believe Unknown = my pet theory
	__________________ dddffffpppqqqq Want to use your computer for something that will make society better? See this thread for details Folding@home

1st September 2007, 03:58 PM	#5
Monza Muse Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 929	Originally Posted by Warge I agree wholeheartedly. A UFO can be anything - a plane, a bird, a star - and to be fair, an alien spaceship even if it's very unlikely. I wonder how it came to be that UFO = alien spaceship? It is quite a large leap to go from "strange lights in the sky" to "a spacecraft piloted by beings from another galaxy". It's amazing how so many people become instant experts in astronomy and aircraft. "No, it couldn;t have been Venus or an ultra-light aircraft." I have always wondered why more astronomers don't report UFO sightings. Here are people who make a living looking at the sky. And yet, they don't tend to report more UFO sightings than other occupations. Could it be that they are more apt to correctly identify strange lights and aerial phenomena?
Monza Muse Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 929

2nd September 2007, 08:59 AM	#6
Denial Scholar Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Christgrinding Avenue Posts: 93	I totally agree with the OP. I suspect the term UFO is corrupted beyond salvation, though. You can hardly say UFO without people immediately thinking of small green men/reptilians/Pierce Brosnan's head on a dog.

2nd September 2007, 10:51 AM	#7
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,653	OK, I'll take on the OP's premise. Aside from the semantic issue that terms mean what they do by convention (and it does seem more and more conventional these days to let "UFO" stand as a short hand for "alien space craft"--I've even seen that usage in a recent Skeptical Inquirer), there is the following. At least a great number of "UFOs" are not real in that they are not Unidentified Flying Objects. Venus or the Moon can not in any realistic way be said to be "flying" objects. Reflections and other strange optical illusions can't even be said to be "objects". Even magnesium flares when seen as hovering UFOs, aside from the launch, would more accurately be described as falling objects not flying. Swamp gas or related sorts of phenomena similarly are not flying. So seeing some apparent light in the sky and jumping to the term UFO is already claiming more knowledge than is warranted in most cases. (Since the "U" is undisputed, I'd say that leap is almost always unwarranted. Without knowing what you're seeing, there's really no way to know for sure much of anything about it.)
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons