Thinking About the Meaning of the Term 'UFO'

[Yazata]

Here's some of the different ways that people seem to interpret the term 'UFO', along with my comments, criticism and suggestions.

1. A 'UFO' is indeed unidentified, but only because of a lack of information about it. If sufficient information was available, then it would resolve into a meteorological, astronomical or optical phenomenon of a known sort. This is the belief, often left unstated, that seemingly defines the "skeptic". This belief does have a grain of truth to it, since it kind of describes the research-program to which sightings are subjected in hopes of identifying them. But when applied as a general principle to all UFO sightings, the a-priori assumption that all of them could be shown to have mundane explanations if enough were known about them looks to me like an insupportable article of faith that goes well beyond the (lack of) evidence.

2. A 'UFO' is exactly that, an 'unidentified flying object'. As long as it's unidentified, it's unidentified, so by definition we don't know what it is. That doesn't necessarily mean 'unidentifiable' or imply that we couldn't discover what it is if more information was available, but with the information that we have, we can't reach a conclusion. Hence drawing premature conclusions about what it is, is probably a mistake. That obviously applies to "They are aliens!" But it applies equally well to "UFOs are bullshit!" This is the position that I lean towards: If it hasn't been identified, then don't get out in front of the (lack of) data by prejudging what it is or what it has to be. Seek more information if it's available. It's fine to form hypotheses, but they should serve as guides as to what kind of additional information we would like to acquire. Speculative hypotheses shouldn't slide over the line into being unsubstantiated conclusions.

3. A 'UFO' is an 'unidentifiable flying object' (as opposed to 'unidentified'). If interpreted literally, this idea would indicate a sort of UFO-mysterianism, the idea that whatever UFO's are, they transcend human cognition. (We sometimes see similar ideas proposed regarding religious experience, which UFO experience so resembles.) I'm not sure what would justify a belief like this regarding UFO's. (There are theological justifications for the religious version, such as maintaining divine transcendence.)

4. A 'UFO' is an unidentifiable flying object, but not unidentifiable in principle as in #3 above, but only unidentifiable in terms of current assumptions. It's basically the belief that UFO's, or at least the most difficult residual cases that can't easily and plausibly be reduced to mundane phenomena, must have extra-mundane explanations. Like #1 it seems to me to get too far out in front of the data.

5. 'UFO' means 'alien spaceship'. Lots of "believers" seem locked into this interpretation. This one seems to obviously fall prey to the 'premature conclusion' and 'unjustified assumption' objections.

6. 'UFO's' (or at least the more difficult residual cases) might be all manner of things: space-aliens, time-travelers, interdimensional- visitors, space animals sounding in Earth's atmosphere, as-yet unknown physical phenomena or an unknown (and unknowable) number of unsuspected possibilities. The science-fiction nut in me finds a grain of truth in this one since it suggests keeping an open mind. (If some 'UFO' reports do have an extra-mundane explanation, it might turn out to be something we don't even currently imagine.) But once again, confusing speculations for conclusions is unjustifiable and way out in front of the evidence.

[C C]

This belief does have a grain of truth to it, since it kind of describes the research-program to which sightings are subjected in hopes of identifying them.

Not surprisingly (compared to the non-trivial stuff), back at the time I apparently missed the UFO items falling out of the Wikileaks of Hillary's campaign-related emails. Tom DeLonge contacted John Podesta to relate his dealings with General McCasland: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3099

But DeLonge has a history of extravagant claims and "X-Files treated as non-fiction" enterprises / pursuits. In a Rolling Stone interview he claimed to be working covertly with government departments: "I couldn't tell the band [Blink-182] I was working with people in the government," he says. "That's another big part of this story. People think I want to just put out a novel and make a movie. I have 10 people that I'm working with that are at the highest levels of the Department of Defense and NASA and the military. [...] no one knows this. I'm doing all this stuff already."

PATRICK DOYLE: Online, DeLonge has been called batshit insane, delusional and a possible paranoid schizophrenic. "It's very hard to think, 'How did this guy in a band get access like that?'" he [DeLonge] says. "It sounds crazy. But it's because I can speak to a very specific audience. I earned their trust. I knew my material."

An earlier email to to Podesta: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2125

[Magical Realist]

A 'UFO' is indeed unidentified, but only because of a lack of information about it. If sufficient information was available, then it would resolve into a meteorological, astronomical or optical phenomenon of a known sort. This is the belief, often left unstated, that seemingly defines the "skeptic". This belief does have a grain of truth to it, since it kind of describes the research-program to which sightings are subjected in hopes of identifying them. But when applied as a general principle to all UFO sightings, the a-priori assumption that all of them could be shown to have mundane explanations if enough were known about them looks to me like an insupportable article of faith that goes well beyond the (lack of) evidence.

An assumption that seems to pivot on a strong faith-based disbelief in extramundane ufo explanations. I say faith because it's the unwarranted strong assertion of an unproveable negative instead of the proper agnosticism that should remain open to both mundane AND extramundane possibilities. I like to put it this way: no matter how many ufo sightings turn out to be caused by mundane events, that will never disprove the existence of extramundane ufos. Can we ever prove an extramundane ufo? Yes..as soon as all mundane factors are logically ruled out. This is entirely possible imo and has been done in many of the best cases. And what cannot be arrived at with a single ufo case CAN be reached with a preponderance of cases all linked by the common traits and behavior patterns of these apparently extramundane objects.

On another note, I awoke this morning to another 2 week ban from Sci Forums. Lord knows what excuse they came up with this time. I haven't insulted anyone in quite a awhile. Maybe it was something trivial like an offtopic post. They'll pretty much use anything they can to censor me over there. Oh well. More time to spend here and on Facebook. Freezing rain predicted today in Portland followed by a winter deluge. Think I'll stay inside for awhile.