A Bold move required............

Hello,

Watching over 100 hours of 'UFO' footage from nearly every corner of the earth, researching the unofficial history of the subject and listened to the views of other interested and involved parties. I have came to the conclusion that the term 'UFO' needs to be changed, as (in my opinion) it continues the 'urban legend', 'mystique' whatever term you want to give it.

Why cant we just agree 'yes there are flying vehicles probably with electro magnetic propulsion systems entering and exiting the earths atmosphere, seas, whatever.

Disclosure 'its coming soon' bypass the government, MIB's, military industrial complex - Lets not spend decades wondering about was that a UFO lets move on accept that, well yes there here and start talking about what drives them, what techs etc. When the day comes and they land in plain sight
(whitehouse lawn lol) we stroll up and ask 'what have you got under the hood?'.

So new terms for UFO required personally I like

ATEV - Alien To Earth Vehicle

EPS - Electromagnetically Propelled Spaceship

I am sure ATS'ers can come up with other names, however the point still stands we need closure on this we need to be able to move on start it here, get it on wikipedia then the dictionary and maybe when the general populace
takes it for granted, governments won't use the old ' They cannot take the truth' ploy ' Mass hysteria' will happen.

So lets go agree a new name - get it into the UFO community, get it into the dictionary and see where it goes from there. If this does not happen we should name UFO's - TWNBIO's - They will never be indentified objects.

As far as I am concerned they have been identified by multiple witnesses (thousands over the decades previous) are they all liars, mad, have an agenda? No, So TIME FOR A BOLD MOVE - Give the damn things a real name.

not even if there should be a landing on the lawn of the white house will people be able to believe that there is more than we know.

I always liked the more "Official" names for UFO's:

1. Weather Balloon
2. Flares
3. Solar flares
4. Venus
5. Dust on the lens.
6. Insect in the field of view of the camera, but out of focus.
7. Blimps
8. Regular Balloons
9. Covert Military Aircraft
10. and the ever popular Seagull.

I almost forgot to mention...

11. A deliberate Hoax

Okay, that's enough humor from me.

You may have a valid point. There may be a need to be new classifications for some of the sightings or even new categories altogether.

[edit on 2/13/2007 by Mechanic 32]

I made this thread a few days ago

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

I too feel "UFO" has too much baggage for it's own good, but calling them alien is not a good solution either, we have no proof of that, some "things" have flight dynamic characteristics and those would be UFO's however if they show no flights dynamic it should have a different name

sodom
ETV`s ( Extra Terrestrial Vehicle ) would be nice

sodom

They just called them the ships mostly, simple enough don't you think. Of course you know they are air and water ships. However, I will say the black glass like one seater is known as the POD.

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
Why cant we just agree 'yes there are flying vehicles probably with electro magnetic propulsion systems entering and exiting the earths atmosphere, seas, whatever.

Well, I can not simply agree because I, like the rest of us, do not know the exact origin of these 'craft'. It is not viable to simply agree that these objects are exiting and entering our atmosphere because I am sure that I am not alone in saying "We do not know what or who they are".

They may be what you think they are, they may be what I think they are, they may be what someone else thinks they are...and on and on.

In fact, I would find it hard to agree to your definition, not because I am a skeptic but because within the UFO community itself there are conflicting claims and different explinations for the phenomenon.

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
So new terms for UFO required personally I like

ATEV - Alien To Earth Vehicle

EPS - Electromagnetically Propelled Spaceship

Once again I feel that you will be hard pressed to find a new and appropriate name for these objects. UFO more or less has the edge (even though there is a stigma which it carries with it).

ATEV does not work because it implies that all of these objects are both vehicals and that they are piloted by a species not native to this planet.

EPS does not work because...well, it presupposes an understanding of the object that is, at this time, unknown. In short: It assumes the propultion system of a craft that may or may not exist.

My humble .02

Originally posted by spines

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
Why cant we just agree 'yes there are flying vehicles probably with electro magnetic propulsion systems entering and exiting the earths atmosphere, seas, whatever.

Well, I can not simply agree because I, like the rest of us, do not know the exact origin of these 'craft'. It is not viable to simply agree that these objects are exiting and entering our atmosphere because I am sure that I am not alone in saying "We do not know what or who they are".

They may be what you think they are, they may be what I think they are, they may be what someone else thinks they are...and on and on.

In fact, I would find it hard to agree to your definition, not because I am a skeptic but because within the UFO community itself there are conflicting claims and different explinations for the phenomenon.

I agree with your logic. We don't difinitively know what they are and how they move. If we were going to choose a new name, it would need to be more abstract. Unfortunately, nothing comes to mind.

Originally posted by Togetic
I agree with your logic. We don't difinitively know what they are and how they move. If we were going to choose a new name, it would need to be more abstract. Unfortunately, nothing comes to mind.

Indeed. UFO seems to be the best suited for the phenomenon as it does not claim origin, propultion or action of whatever the object may be.

these are more "PC" terms for the same thing, U.O.O. generic term for Unknown Observable Object, sub-categories: Unknown Aerial Phenomena, Unknown Water Phenomena. with this nomenclature you encompass ball lighting and Venus and weather balloons without the stigma attached

Originally posted by thedigirati
these are more "PC" terms for the same thing, U.O.O. generic term for Unknown Observable Object, sub-categories: Unknown Aerial Phenomena, Unknown Water Phenomena. with this nomenclature you encompass ball lighting and Venus and weather balloons without the stigma attached

Touche. I like the term UOO, that one is a winner.

But it would take much to replace UFO in the popular nomenclature. I sure hope that one day it can be replaced or the stigma removed.

Well at least a couple of guys agree to a point - funny thing is everyone including skeptics agree that they or 'something' exists. From a purely logic driven focus

Proven (see disclosure files*) - again and again these '''craft''' regularly exceed fastest known human capable speed (g forces etc blacking out blah blah) Which means again cant prove it by drawing a diagram (lol) inertia has been somehow altered and that forces acting on the human body - are not basically (In relation to reported movements of the crafts).

So if humans built it then its not an unidentified or unknown flying object its a vehicle with state of the art technology. Stay with me a mo - the point being its a known object type - if its a flying (off the ground) silver orb with lights call it a flying orb - I am not really a fan of pidgeon holeing things, however in this case it makes sense to say what it is as UFO is just too broad a term. Aeroplane - categorise, commercial, fighter, bomber, small jet etc etc etc - you get the picture.

UFO covers (as the humorous but poignant post stated) swamp gas, weather balloon, hmmmm anything flying that is not in a easily identified category. Lets take one example a cigar tube shaped object goes by with windows in the side and little people (gray types) looking out. We would categorise for others 1. Its vehicle (its carrying so to speak persons) 2. It has been identified as very strange 'exotic' could be a word and its in the air so its flying.

So I would declare it as Exotic Flying Vehicle, Not UFO.

How many people have to declare their experiences to the world before Mr Joe Public and Miss Mass Media wake. Its like Newton and the apple story 'aha by george I think i've discovered an USF (Unidentified Strange Force) no he discovered 'gravity' sounds much better just rolls off the tongue. Poor example I admit.

Identification is very important we keep sticking our heads in the sand nothing will happen - a saying 'call a spade a spade'.


*Ok so argue the point its not proven but i am willing to take upwards of 30 trained radar technicians word and some physical proof that objects exceed known aircraft topspeeds by X2, X3, X4.

Spines - your points are sorry to say atypical of 50+ years of UFO talk by which i mean conservative (non risky), but you are entitled to them, why is it so hard to say or to envision what astronauts ( or nuts if you like) have told us about - our friend from area 51 Mr Lazar states he has seen worked on even (better than the average bear)
All kinds of official ranking officers have admitted to being involved with.

So there is a story within a story within a story big deal strip it down, focus on the weakest link then crack the chain. Don't just take the sensational names 'Mr Lear' respect, Mr cooper the astronut - what about the death bed confessions, numerous books - OK so I am asking the question you have seen the evidence Guilty or not guilty? I mean come on you think I was asking you to believe in the man in the (suspiciously blurred building like structure or 1 mile high tower on the) moon and we as grown ups know that he (they) don't exist thats as crazy as pyramids on Mars.

Enough nagging for now - later.

I agree, Ufo does have a stigma about it, and should be changed. As soon as the term Ufo is used outside the Ufo community the eyes begin to roll and the smirks begin. We change the verbage for other things as times change. UOO is a good start.

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
Identification is very important we keep sticking our heads in the sand nothing will happen - a saying 'call a spade a spade'.


*Ok so argue the point its not proven but i am willing to take upwards of 30 trained radar technicians word and some physical proof that objects exceed known aircraft topspeeds by X2, X3, X4.

true enough, However, there is no "proof" they are extra terrestrial, they could just as easily be extra dimensional or for that extra temporal , if you could move thru dimensions or time you would "appear" to move rapidly from our limited perception ( a Movie is just a bunch of still pictures passing before a light in a rapid motion, but it appers to have movement)

I have Never likes the term "ufo" ever since I was a child because I found it to be limiting to the possibilities of reality. plus it doesn't include other phenomena ie. ball lighting, or the "mothman" ( men) type things.

It may be just a question of semantics, but with a change in Nomenclature, you change the paradigm, with a paradigm shift, maybe, you legitmize the subject at hand.

How about ARV's? Alien Reproduction Vehicles

or

ETV's- Extraterrestrial Transit Vehicles

A.S.A.T.

Apparently Suspicious Aircraft Thingy

I agree with the assumption that the craft may use a type of Gravity Distortion Propulsion system.

Thus, the term: Gravity Distortion Craft

or

GDC

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
I have came to the conclusion that the term 'UFO' needs to be changed

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.

I'm leery of giving names to UFOs. This might make ufology look even more kooky that it already is seen as. We don't want to look like ghost-hunters talking about class-2 versus class-4a entities (I just made that up), when they haven't even shown the world that there ARE any ghosts.

Originally posted by Sophismata

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
I have came to the conclusion that the term 'UFO' needs to be changed

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.

I'm leery of giving names to UFOs. This might make ufology look even more kooky that it already is seen as. We don't want to look like ghost-hunters talking about class-2 versus class-4a entities (I just made that up), when they haven't even shown the world that there ARE any ghosts.

Could it be possible that some UOO's Are ghosts? besides, I think there is more photographic evidence that "Something" is there, IMHO it's not a question of are they "real" or not but the emotion the term "UFO" invokes. think about this to yourself, what is the very 1st thing YOU think of when you hear the term "UFO"?? Then ask your friends and co-workers the same question.
To me "UFO" is a push button term, that needs to change if the world is Ever gonna look into it seriously.

We still don't know enough to make any accusations, and the term UFO still applies for any craft that is unidentified but is not an alien ship...

Even if many are alien ships some still will be just objects yet to be identified.