"Unidentified" - very 20th Century. "Unconventional" - more 21st?

A thought that has been nagging me all week is the way we refer to the term "UFO". Currently it means "unidentified flying object". To me this seems like an outdated, not very scientific nor intelligent way to determine the aerial phenomena that gets reported. The original "unidentified" term allows for 95% of sightings to be misidentification, but "unconventional" would relate ONLY to that 5% often deemed to be "the real deal".

I get the impression that 60-70 years of "not being able to identify things in the sky" is probably long enough. First they were unidentified, during those 60 years or so more of them have become identified as clearly unconventional "objects".

This would also weave out all the chinese lantern videos and such, I feel. Anyone can post a video of a balloon or lantern, satellite and such, but they all fall into the realm of conventional objects, conventional movements and so forth. So we are doing nothing by bringing them up and just saying they are "unidentified", and assuming that is cause for alarm/speculation or investigation.

Personally I think that one word - unidentified - mars the subject and makes it almost tedious to follow sometimes. It's so broad nowadays that to me it just seems to yell of old school thinking and bad, repetitive speculation and investigation. Of course, I can't get the English language or the term "UFO" changed, but I'd be interested to know if you think that term, or some other, would help bring things up to spec. I'm reaching the point where the more the phenomena gets referred to as "unidentified" the more dumb it gets.

A tree is unidentified until you learn more about it, but you wouldn't go posting that you simply couldn't identify it. You'd post if it grew arms and started singing Return to Sender or something. Teach people to spot & report things that are unconventional, not just things they can't identify. It's too broad!!

Peace!

You'd post if it grew arms and started singing Return to Sender or something.

Bahahahahaha!

On topic: Yes I agree wholeheartedly with you...can we even go so far as to say a plane is a UFO until you know the make and model?

reply to post by markymint


The problem is you could look at a light hovering in the sky and say that's Unconventional , but on further investigation discover that the light was a plane traveling toward the viewer so the Unconventional is really a conventional object , its a case of how a person perceives what they see , how are we to know what is Unconventional or if it really is Unconventional .

Originally posted by markymint
Personally I think that one word - unidentified - mars the subject and makes it almost tedious to follow sometimes.

The problem with "UFO" isn't "unidentified", it's "flying object", since some are found to not be flying objects.

This is why NARCAP doesn't call them UFOs but instead "UAP" or "unidentified aerial phenomena".

I don't understand your objection to "unidentified", because if we don't know what it is, what else are we going to call it? The problem with "unconventional" is that it presumes we know what it is and that it's not conventional. We don't know that.

narcap.org...

An unidentified aerial phenomenon (UAP) is the visual stimulus that
provokes a sighting report of an object or light seen in the sky, the
appearance and/or flight dynamics of which do not suggest a logical,
conventional flying object and which remains unidentified after close
scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable
of making both a full technical identification as well as a common-sense
identification, if one is possible. (Haines, Pp. 13-22, 1980)

The term "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena" or UAP is an attempt to address the fact that
not all UAP are described as unidentified flying objects or UFO. Many are simply
described as unusual lights. NARCAP feels the term "UAP" more accurately reflects the
broad scope of descriptions in aviation reports as well as the possibility that these
phenomena may arise from several different sources.

NARCAP has the new name we need, IMO. The definition does mention unconventional, so you might like that?

reply to post by markymint


I'm inclined to agree that a change in definition is needed. Unidentified Flying Object covers too broad a spectrum. Getting people to change their perception of the term "UFO" is the biggest hurdle, so I think there needs to be a change in terminology.

There was a thread a while back proposing sub-categories for UFOs.

www.abovetopsecret.com

I kind of like that idea because it would distinguish between unidentified lights, unusual objects and "holy crap! what is that?"

Unknown. Far out! (UFO)

Unidentified Freaky/Foreign Overflyer/Object?

We, should rename it. "intelligent aeronautical unknown aircraft". Something of the sort. Any ideas anyone?

How about we simply just let the entire subject go all together? Don't get me wrong, I am all for SETI, be it in space or our atmosphere, but the facts are, in today's day and age, there will not be any definitive proof except in an "Independence Day" situation. Aeronautics technology has progressed well beyond the common bystanders understanding, CGI has advanced to the point where it is virtually impossible to tell reality from fiction(to the untrained eye and in some cases at all), and critical thinking no longer has a place in the common publics thinking process. The entire concept has been technologically eliminated in at least the cases of "Close Encounters of the 1st and 2nd kind" if not even the "3rd kind" as well. These types of reports and conversations have become redundant in that one side presents it as proof and the other debunks it but the truth is that nothing can be proven beyond the shadow of doubt in todays World.

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by markymint

 

The problem is you could look at a light hovering in the sky and say that's Unconventional , but on further investigation discover that the light was a plane traveling toward the viewer so the Unconventional is really a conventional object , its a case of how a person perceives what they see , how are we to know what is Unconventional or if it really is Unconventional .

you seem to be basing your argument from the perspective of someone watching a video. there is much more reason to consider something unconventional when you are actually there. Very few videos of unconventional objects include a pre-perspective and the aftermath of a sighting so a lot is missing from the perspective of your argument. Take FrozenHill's Lake Eerie footage. It's a well known spot where there shouldn't be air traffic and the lights, if they were conventional craft, would eventually go somewhere. I've taken footage of air craft and in most cases they were obviously conventional craft and then there were others which didn't behave normally. I have footage of one that most people will say is a balloon or a group of balloons moving unlike a group of balloons would move and there is even shadow evidence of a concave surface on part of the object. There is even a back story to the object that no one really cares about so who cares what people think about footage? There can always be a shadow of doubt if you weren't actually there, so what? What does that prove, that some people will always doubt until something like it happens to them? Has nothing to do with diminishing the reality of unconventionality.

Originally posted by Agarta
...but the truth is that nothing can be proven beyond the shadow of doubt in todays World.

and I can even doubt that last sentence of yours

reply to post by bottleslingguy

there is much more reason to consider something unconventional when you are actually there.

In regard to planes I agree but not all UFO sightings are planes , I refer you to This thread , conventional , unconventional or neither ... Unidentified for a while .

Take FrozenHill's Lake Eerie footage. It's a well known spot where there shouldn't be air traffic and the lights, if they were conventional craft, would eventually go somewhere.

Have you seen the number of airports around the Lake Eerie area ? , I am in no doubt that the Lake Eerie footage's are of planes .

Originally posted by N3k9Ni
reply to post by markymint

 

I'm inclined to agree that a change in definition is needed. Unidentified Flying Object covers too broad a spectrum. Getting people to change their perception of the term "UFO" is the biggest hurdle, so I think there needs to be a change in terminology.

There was a thread a while back proposing sub-categories for UFOs.

www.abovetopsecret.com

I kind of like that idea because it would distinguish between unidentified lights, unusual objects and "holy crap! what is that?"

I like 'objects of high strangeness' or OOHS

www.cassiopaea.org...

"The term "high strangeness" is attributed to Dr. J. Allen Hynek who addressed the United Nations on the subject of UFOs on November 27, 1978 in the following way:

Mr. Chairman, there exists today a world-wide phenomenon... indeed if it were not world-wide I should not be addressing you and these representatives from many parts of the world. There exists a global phenomenon the scope and extent of which is not generally recognized. It is a phenomenon so strange and foreign to our daily terrestrial mode of thought that it is frequently met by ridicule and derision by persons and organizations unacquainted with the facts. [...]

I refer, of course, to the phenomenon of UFOs... Unidentified Flying Objects... which I should like to define here simply as "any aerial or surface sighting, or instrumental recording (e.g., radar, photography, etc.) which remains unexplained by conventional methods even after competent examination by qualified persons."

Originally posted by gortex
I am in no doubt that the Lake Eerie footage's are of planes .

watch footage of planes coming from and going to airports. they behave as they should. the Lake Eerie lights don't. You can't say they are plane headlights coming toward the camera because then they would actually go somewhere within a couple minutes. Allison Kruse is another one who has tons of footage with analysis that shows without a doubt those lights are not conventional aircraft. No one has made a video even coming close to adequately debunking her footage. They may take a snippet or a mis-statement on her part and blow it out of proportion and then act as though they've debunked the many hours of highly strange activity that is definitely in the air controlled by something other than random wind. If the video is long enough it will become apparent whether you are watching planes or something else, but if you are actually there from the beginning of the experience to the end you will have a much better perspective of how strange the object/experience was. If you weren't there you might as well not even speak about it.

reply to post by bottleslingguy

Allison Kruse is another one who has tons of footage with analysis that shows without a doubt those lights are not conventional aircraft

Ahhh , you mean this Alison Kruse

And this from AWOL member Maybe...maybe not
The Dishonesty & Danger Inherent In The seeingUFOsPA Hoax

I'm sorry but she is well known here for filming planes and calling them unidentified flying objects .

reply to post by gortex

I'm aware you are one of them. Don't waste your time with me, I'm not an idiot

reply to post by gortex

p.s.
why do you erase the topic reply heading to your responses? trying more dirty tricks? what is it with you losers? love to muddy the truth don't you?

Can't you take that stuff to PM, bottle-person? Beside my original point, the other thing marring the UFO stuff is the belligerent manner in which people presume they can post when a speculative topic arises or someone thoughtfully tries to counter an opinion (and that's what gortex did, he/she didn't get up in your face about it, you're well aware of that)

Allison Kruse is another one who has tons of footage with analysis that shows without a doubt those lights are not conventional aircraft. No one has made a video even coming close to adequately debunking her footage.

For a start, she has a night-scope or some other infrared tool that I think you'll find, most others of us can't afford, or are busy spending our money on things needed to survive and live on instead. I'm pretty sure any sane person would not go out of their way to try and disprove her, that could cost some money - but taking into account what is "known" from just living your life and getting a grasp of conventional objects/aircraft etc is free and easy. I've seen those videos of helicopters with searchlights filmed under IR that she claims are UFO's shining lasers onto the ground, and have to agree with gortex, a lot of her videos are rubbish. Her heart may be in the right place but her conclusions are up in the air. That doesn't mean all her videos should be discarded, but a lot of them clearly should. But no, this is not a discussion about her or her videos, and also no: This is more about ground sightings than watching videos.

I understand about the shimmering lights, but even then, that would fall under the conventional, just about. A star shimmers and stays in roughly the same place for a good twenty minutes or so. Just like a dimly lit object flying over head at a fairly slow speed matches up to two conventional objects, like chinese lanterns or a satellite.

But when you throw the objects that move fifty times faster than a jumbo jet or satellite you are clearly stepping out of the realms of conventional craft and into those "high strangeness" areas, and it's that area that personally, I think if we want to start achieving anything with these "investigations", we have to prioritize those kind of sightings and be prepared to wipe the slate clean of the others that could clearly link to conventional operation.

I think it's important to keep in mind the technology we know about when dealing with UFO sightings and not even mention speculative tech. Someone always brings it up, but it's almost agnostic; "We have no proof it exists, but that means we can't prove it doesn't exist." (I guess the same could be said about UFO alien craft )

That said, thanks for all the comments & suggestions!

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by gortex

 

p.s.
why do you erase the topic reply heading to your responses? trying more dirty tricks? what is it with you losers? love to muddy the truth don't you?

edit on 10-9-2012 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)

What are you talking about

In my reply to you I quoted the relevant part that I am replying to , as I see you did to my post above the post your complaining about , I also try to be polite in my replies which I see you have a problem doing .

In regard to Allison Kruse , if you chose to believe her claims then fine ..... not my problem .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

reply to post by markymint

I think it's important to keep in mind the technology we know about when dealing with UFO sightings and not even mention speculative tech. Someone always brings it up, but it's almost agnostic; "We have no proof it exists, but that means we can't prove it doesn't exist."

Agreed , I've noticed a growing trend of people calling secret military tech on a UFO video rather than consider the more likely prosaic explanation of lantern , regular plane or other , I think some here have a need to believe in the mysterious over a desire to know the truth .
I believe in Alien piloted UFOs having visited in the recent and distant past but now I want to know the truth , belief is no longer good enough for me