Ok, we toss around UFO and so many people have it mean two or three different things - so cast your vote.

I have to admit I am guilty of using the two top definitions interchangeably.

i think its pretty safe to say that the acronym has evolved from its original meaning and that using it for other "things" is ok.

considering i dont know what the UAP's are i prob use it for all 3 +more

Unidentify

IMO, this is a problem in discussions, when we allow known words to expand in usage instead of making new ones if need be. It's like over on the paranormal forum, they throw around "demon" and "demonic" so much they don't know what they're talking about anymore. I read now where supposedly bad people die and can become demons

Demons are a specific race, for lack of better words, which we may or may not even know anything about but from a few historic perspectives, such as the Bible. Never were human, never will be, period.

"demonic" only means a thing has attributes like what we assume a demon would.

Now, they think if it is dark or shadowy it is a demon from hell for sure come to haunt just them and snatch their soul away *sighs*

So, I'm really really hoping we can try very hard to be precise in our terms over here so all of us can feel more confident we know what each other means. To me, if I say "UFO" I mean I saw something and don't know what it is. If I knew it was a saucer from Sirius, I'd say so... if that makes sense? Or even "it was a saucer that looked just like this pic".

Maybe I'm being too tight about it, but I really think we need to try to hang onto the meaning of what we say and be as specific as we can be to help get useful input from others which is to the point... and also get it to others who might be out there and a bit freaked out and hoping to find an answer.

JMO, totally,

NS

So am I
When it comes to UFOs ,some are misidents or hoaxes-some are not and are completely inexplicable.
Many government declassified documents refer to UFOs as 'Unidentified Aerial Phenomena'(UAP) or Identified Aerial Vehicles'(IAVs) and some documents state that UFOs are "seemingly intelligently controlled objects" with admittance that some UFOs "display technologies far beyond man made devices'.
I suppose if certain governments are speculating about UFOs being 'non human aircraft' then the idea does not seem too outlandish and does not deserve the mockery and derision it usualy receives from cynical debunkers.
There are many objects plotted on radar travelling huge speeds and displaying totaly unprecedented movement-these objects are unexplainable to science and do exist.
For the most part debunkers utterly fail to 'explain inexplicable objects' and therefore they remain completely unidentified.
As Sherlock Holmes says
"When you have eliminated the impossible -the remaining explanation,however improbable,must be the truth".
Of course theres no unequivocable evidence for the ET hypothesis -yet it is an unequivocable fact that there are (seemingly) intelligently controlled objects travelling at vast speeds in the skies and oceans of the world
The UFO subject is a very real one and many highly credible,highly prominent people beleive them to be 'exotic non human aircraft' .
An Objective study of this (tabboo)subject is long overdue and an open,impartial,non hysterical investigation is sorely needed.
Cheers Karl

Which is the same case for me.

Unidentified flying object. Although I too am guilty of using the term loosely, to include inerplanetary craft, interdimensional craft.

Join the club. Then again, who isn't?

I generaly use 'Craft' for "Alien Spaceships" and UFO for unidentifiable sky objects.

UFO can refer to a number of unidentified flying objects whether they are balloons, aircraft, meteors, and extraterrestrial spaceships. Occasionally, I refer to certain UFOs as "UFOS in question" where the UFO was identified as a metallic saucer, spherical, cylinder, or triangular-shaped craft whose size and performance characteristics rule-out conventional aircraft. In many of the UFO case files in question, size and performance characteristics were enough to excluded conventional aircraft and natural phenomena. Many of the UFOs documented were much larger than aircraft carriers, so we know from that fact the UFO could not have been a meteor, balloon nor an aircraft and its performance characteristics excluded those objects and weather-related phenomena as well.

Can we shed the 'UFO cover sheet' when the UFO was identified as a metallic, domed, saucer-shaped flying vehicle that is 1000+ meters in diameter that flies circles around high-performance jet aircraft then zooms off in a climb at 9000+ mph? Such cases have been documented by the FAA and the military.

The first and literal meaning.

I would like to ask:

When we talk about UFO's - can those that agree to this state:

UFO = UN-identified Fly Object.

... If you mean ET/Alien

AFO - Alien Flying Object or UAFO = Unidentified Alien Flying Object

.... If you mean time Machine:

TMFO = Time Machine Flying Object.

Let's try to talk what we mean - is that a reasonable request??

Everything in the sky that believers cant identify is a "Interplanetary Craft from another world" for them.
And if they can identify it, then it is no longer a alien space craft

I wouldn't say that!

After all, how many aircraft do we have that are larger than aircraft carriers? Do we have large aircraft that can conduct right-angled maneuvers beyond 40+ Gs? How many aircraft are capable of flight of 18000 mph within the earth's atmosphere and not create a sonic boom?

When a flying saucer is identified with such performance capabilities, such capabilities only serve to underline the fact that the flying saucer is not ours.

I can agree with that, but only until more facts are revealed.



Well, if the UFO was tracked flying in from outer space and it is 3000 feet in diameter, saucer-shaped, conducts right-angled high-G maneuvers, and zooms off at hypersonic speeds, then it is not likely the UFO, now identified as a maneuvering hypersonic flying saucer, is ours.



I have a problem with time travel. For instance, what if I traveled back into time and abducted myself from earlier years and went back further again and again until I have abducted 50 entities of myself, and killed them all and was arrested? What am I going to be charged with? Multiple counts of murder for murdering myself 50 times?

What if I killed my parents before I was born? Those are the easy questions.

You probably shouldn't assume that.

I've used the term for alien aircraft as well as unidentified "thing". I try to make it a habit to avoid that here...

Literal. If it's unidentified (completely), then it is unidentified. Whether it comes from Edwards AFB, Mercury, Area 51, or some other mundane place, such as some other planet or galaxy, it is still unidentified.
Sorry.

I kind of go with interplanetary crafts and, UFO's! Because to me they are both concidered unidentified.

Pardon me if I am being condescending, but I feel this argument holds little significance to the reality of the "UFO" phenomenon itself. It's becoming rather monotonous. I don't feel the term is abused to the point at which it is necessary to warrant corrective exploitation. It may be a bit of a cliche term, but I feel the intended meaning is displayed well enough in context. The true definition of UFO has evolved as time has past to stand as a substitute for extraterrestrial space craft, as a sort of slang. Thus it may be used interchangeably between "unidentified" flying object and "extraterrestrial" flying object. Sure, it's the incorrect usage, but the context of the assertion is usually direct enough to discern the intended meaning, in my opinion. You're simply flogging a dead horse with unnecessary cause.

what about the option that they could be military aircraft prototypes? cause that's what I think they are. I have seen a pic in a ufo-book taken in the late 50's, and the craft in the pic looks exactly like an F117 (stealth aircraft). I'll see I can scan the pic and post it here:)

^(Guru) What he said

Well see that would be UN-Identified - until it is Identified.

Are there various crafts it "could" be - yes, but until they are identified as such - they remain: UFO's -- Un-identified Flying Objects.

The moment someone puts an ID to them - be it: Human, Alien or something else - then the burden of proof falls on them to supply credible and verifiable evidence.

When they ID it as "Human" - they have to supply proof.
When they ID it as "ET-Alien - they have to supply proof.
When they ID it as "from the future" - they have to supply proof.... and so on.

Until such credible and verifiable evidence is supplied - it is UN-identified - nothing more and nothing less.

The following data is definitely not that of any conventional aircraft. Such maneuvers would have destroyed any aircraft, and the fact the UFO left no sonic boom, underlines the point that it wasn't a conventional aircraft because mankind had not solved the riddle of the sonic boom when this incident occurred and the Belgian Air Force made it perfectly clear that the UFO produced no sonic boom, which simply means that someone solved the riddle of the sonic boom and it wasn't mankind. In fact, UFOs were clocked exceeding 12,000 mph within earth's atmosphere during the 1950s, yet they produced no sonic booms.

After all, FAA regulatons remain in place that governs supersonic flight over the United States, which means we still haven't solved the sonic boom riddle.

Data on that UFO

Seconds after Heading Speed Altitude lock-on (degrees) (knots) (feet)
00 200 150 7000 01 200 150 7000 02 200 150 7000 03 200 150 7000 04 sharp 200 acceleration 150 6000 05 turn 270 = 22 g 560 6000 06 270 560 6000 07 270 570 6000 08 270 560 7000 09 270 550 7000 10 210 560 9000 11 210 570 10000 12 210 560 11000 13 210 570 10000 14 270 770 7000 15 270 770 6000 16 270 780 6000 17 270 790 5000 18 290 1010 4000 19 290 1000 3000 20 290 990 2000 21 290 990 1000 22 300 990 0000 22.5 300 980 0000 Break lock


http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/9054/belradar.jpg

Since i know how to identify a plane to a flying saucer, and that flying saucer was manned
by intelligent being, and believing we're only a dot in space.
I'd vote for interplanetary craft from another world.

Jjbreen,

I agree with your idealistic analysis of the term and understand the reasoning behind your inability to accept the contention that UFOs may be represented as extraterrestrial space craft. Agreeably, no set of radar or flight performance data of any kind may by itself indicate the source of the observed object. It may eliminate the human variable from the equation, but geological, atmospheric, and astronomical anomalies as well as other mundane and extreme variables remain valid regardless of initial nonsensical absurdity of said variables as well as others potentially not yet considered. So too does the extraterrestrial hypothesis remain as a valid hypothesis. To eliminate the extraterrestrial hypothesis from the UFO equation one must delve into the fringe area's of alien abduction as well as humanoid sightings associated with the aforementioned aircraft that coincide with the aerial descriptions thus reported. Equally important is the analysis and elimination of possible crash and retrieval operations, of which the only credible one (based on my personal research) worthy of evaluation is the Roswell incident of 1947. Such things must be considered and refuted sufficiently before denounced as illogical, implausible, or simply science fiction.

Ok - now here is a point:
Explain exactly how you know it was "manned by intellegent beings"?

Did you see the 'being'?

Can you validate w/certainty it was not remote controlled by a ground base control?

For me, it is not a case of denying the possibility of aliens. It is semantics. I should be able to show a picture and say I took it of a UFO, can anyone tell me what I saw, and not get mocked for it or accused of making a hoax, when we prove to satisfaction it was something ordinary. "UFO" should mean only that at the onset. I saw something I could not identify, period.

If we cannot identify it, then ok, call it *still* a UFO until we can. But the contrary presumption that it infers alien origin is the encroaching problem with the word which gets fringe people like me who are considering this information to back way off and think it is a case of religious-like believers in anything.

Surely, this defeats efforts to find out what is going on and making more people aware of the occasional valid reports which really cannot be explained away today?

Had Lost Shaman and JJ and a few others not been kind about it and stuck to literal meanings, I'd never have been able to find out that something I saw was very likely alien after all, for lack of more information. I did not believe at all, but I asked the question after many years of silence after observing their responses to others. Neither of them tried to debate with me, they just stuck to meaning without inferences, and for that I agree with thier care with words and desire for truth over assumptions being built into words.

What I saw remains a UFO, basically a UAP, but the difference is my mind was opened to potentials, and nobody tried to say I was making it up or whatever, because simply using the word meant I was implying it wasn't something ordinary and mundane. Preserving this meaning is important to me, and to others like me, who doubt but are willing to look into it more.

IMO, Unidentified Flying Object means only that and needs to stay that way as we can, not slide into slang for something *certainly* alien to our experience.

If it is *certainly* alien, then I would hope to read that in the context of the sentence using it.

It shouldn't be a threat to belief to encourage a neutral meaning to ONE acronym, and to ask for clarification in the usage as to if it has been proven to not be anything we know of so far. Same with UAPs. Let us newbies and neophytes have the words to express with and not have to dread being accused of claiming aliens if it proves to be something normal.

That is the issue for me.

JMO
NS

YES !

Everything down was disabled when they passed.
Even your mind or brain, they can make it blank.

Voted the 1st option. Unidentified Flying Object to me could be an alien craft, a boomerang, a bug... until you know what it is it's a UFO.


I'd like to include:
DKWTFIWBIGMW

"Don't know what the funk it was but it's got my waffles"

LOLZ!

Welll...


You know my answer, Jj...meds or none!!!

Everyone pay attention!

The acronym UFO was coined to reference the "Mysterious" phenomena that became known to the public after the Kenneth Arnold sighting. Originally this Phenomena was called "Flying Saucers", and "Flying Disks", and "Disc's"(by the Military). Not all the phenomena in this class however were "Disk" or "Saucer" shaped, thus the need for a more inclusive term for the Phenomena. So the military documentation began to use the term "Unconventional Flying Object", and the abbreviation for that took the form of the acronym "UFO". Slowly the "Unconventional" began to be replaced by "Unidentified", and by the mid-fifties this acronym was in use by the public.

The acronym was never intended to be taken literally as anything you simply can't Identify. It was always a reference to the "Mysterious" Phenomena that appeared in 1947*. e.g. (Flying Saucers, Balls of Light, massive cigar shaped objects, etc.)

* Actually much earlier than 1947, but this was not in the public mind ;until 1947.

J. Allen Hynek gave the definition as...

"The reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon the land, the appearance, trajectory or general dynamics and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible." (The UFO Experience, Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1972, p. 10).

So bottom line UFO does not mean something you simply can't ID, it is a reference to the Phenomena that still to this day defies conventional explanation. Bugs, Weather Balloons, birds, and strange Aircraft are not UFOs even if you can't positively ID them, as long as the sighting conforms to convention, ID or no ID it's not a UFO.

Fine. No room for me. One believes it is an Unconventional thingy up in the sky or one shuts up.

Got it.

NS

Hey Nile_Shaman,

No one needs to believe anything. UAP exist and are being Scientifically studied in the Hessdalen Valley, Norway and other places. UAP defy conventional explanation just as the definition of UFO explains.

http://www.hessdalen.org/index_e.shtml

http://www.nidsci.org/pdf/hessdalen.pdf

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000icph.rept.....T

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000NIDS..rept....T

Here is an excellent Paper that discusses some of these Scientific efforts and their successes, written by well known Astronomer Eamonn Ansbro of Kingsland Observatory.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ESASP.496..285A