But we could still ascribe motivations to aliens, to explain why they might come and explore. See, I did it already. The urge to explore. Simple, isn't it? Seems Joe revels in being vague.
Could Aliens be Hidding?
- Thread starter ElectricFetus
- Start date
But we could still ascribe motivations to aliens, to explain why they might come and explore. See, I did it already. The urge to explore. Simple, isn't it? Seems Joe revels in being vague.
I think the time has rolled around again, good grief! has another year gone by?, that the current term is UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon).
If only to disassociate the speaker/ writer from flying saucers.
UFO, in and of itself, presupposes that it is an object and flying (as opposed to falling etc).
Which leads, usually, to aliens in saucers.
Granted a number of reports have been found to be secret aircraft (or even non-secret ones misidentified/ unrecognised), and doubtless some of those that haven't been conclusively shown to be so will actually be just that. But the aerospace industry can only deploy a relatively limited number of "secret" types and only a limited number of flights by them.
If only to disassociate the speaker/ writer from flying saucers.
UFO, in and of itself, presupposes that it is an object and flying (as opposed to falling etc).
Which leads, usually, to aliens in saucers.
Granted a number of reports have been found to be secret aircraft (or even non-secret ones misidentified/ unrecognised), and doubtless some of those that haven't been conclusively shown to be so will actually be just that. But the aerospace industry can only deploy a relatively limited number of "secret" types and only a limited number of flights by them.
What the hell?
Here is your problem. Your thinking is irrational. You are unable to support your claims with proof or even reason. So all you have is ad hominem. Where the hell you are getting this homohobe stuff is beyond me. But then I tend to be a logical rational thinker. Your thoughts are just too disjointed friend.
Certianly UFO movements have been described by observers as being intelligent. But because a UFO object appears to be under intelligent control, it does not mean that we will be able to attribute a motive to its actions with any degree of precision.
We can project our motivations on to the apparently intelligently controlled object, but our projection may or may not be accurate. Humans are particularily good at projection. We project our emotional states on to animals all the time. It's called anthropomorphism. I am sure you are aware of the term. And there is no reason why we could not do it to UFOs. But that does not mean our projections would approach anything close to reality.
A number of people have died projecting emotions onto animals (e.g. poisonous snakes, lions, tigers, bears, bulls, etc.). Anthropomorphism can not only be wrong, it can be dangerous and deadly.
Last edited:
No, my thinking is based upon research. If you go read up about Project Blue Book, that coined the phrase 'U.F.O.' you'll come to understand that at that time, a previous project had concluded that what was being seen was of Extra Terrestrial Origin. That is the context surrounding the phrase.
Go read the links.
I have explained the history, all you had to do is go look it up for yourself. I then gave you an example of another word where the literal translation does not equate to how it is applied.
Do I? Please quote me.
It was an example, did it go over your head? You take a literal view of the phrase 'U.F.O.' well, almost, because you seem to forget the 'F' part when it suits you. I pointed out that a literal interpretation of the word 'homophobe' does not actually convey how we understand or use the term. This establishes the precedent that literal interpertations are not 100% accurate, thus defeating your assertion that the term 'U.F.O.' has nothing to do with Aliens.
Basically kid I've trussed you up like a Turkey, it's really time for you to stop speaking and further embarrassing yourself.
IF it is FLYING it is under some sort level of intelligent control.
Nope, all I asking if we can determine intelligence, not any "motive" beyond that. And yes many UFO have been describe as that, but also many have been found to be airplanes. When adding on that bobbing around like a brightly sparkling idiot rules out aliens then you reduce that 1.7% of unexplained cases more.
So ball lightning is intelligent? Heck Clouds are intelligent?
Neither of which really qualify as 'flying', sure they are atmospheric phenomena that hang in the air,... but then so are molecules of O2, or even H20 when it's not forming a cloud, and we don't state that those are 'flying' do we?
This proves my point that the term UFO isn't useful, people hide behind it, and assign different meanings to it. UAP is a more accurate term.
I think we are in agreement.
LOL, delusions must be wonderful.But that is all you have friend.
From one of the links I provided, emphasis mine:
"Project Sign was an official U.S. government study of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) undertaken by the United States Air Force in late 1947 and dissolved in late 1948.
Formally, Project Sign came to no conclusion about UFOs[1] with their final report stating that the existence of "flying saucers" could neither be confirmed or denied. However, prior to this, Sign officially argued that UFOs were likely of extraterrestrial origin, and most of the project's personnel came to favor the extraterrestrial hypothesis before this opinion was rejected and Sign was dissolved."
Not delusions kid. Facts. Facts you don't even bother to look up.
What you fail to understand is that nothing you have posted is relevant to the line of discussion in this thread.
That the most bullshit excuse I have ever heard! Lets look up the definition of flying,
flying: "Capable of or engaged in flight"
flight: "The motion of an object in or through a medium, especially through the earth's atmosphere or through space."
Object: "something material that may be perceived by the senses."
Now you can't tell me ball lightning is not an "object" and that it not capable of "flight" and it thus is not "flying".
So falling is actually flying.
Clouds fly. Raindrops fly. People jumping off a tall building fly.
That the term UFO was coined by US Military projects, one of which held the opinion that they were of extra-terrestrial origin is exactly relevant.
You lost this round kid, suck it up.
Oh, and I am still waiting for these alleged ad-hominems to be quoted too.
You've succeeded in abstracting the definition to absurdity.
If ball lightning is an object, go bring me one in a box. Same goes for a cloud.
Object:
ob·ject
[n. ob-jikt, -jekt; v. uhb-jekt] Show IPA
–noun
1.
anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/object)
Also, you fail to understand that your absurd stretch covers atmospheric gases under brownian motion, or currents of wind. Air flies now?
Last edited:
How is that the definition of an object, can I put an oil tanker in a box and bring it to you? Yet its still an "object".
Sure it does if you want to broaden the definition enough, thus you can't possibly say that for something to be "flying" it must have some degree of intelligence. You would need a very unorthodox set of definitions to make your argument valid. Lets say a volcano launches a rock through the air, why could I not say its flying?
When you have to beat your own drum my friend because no one else will - well that speaks for itself. As for ad hominems, go look up the definition and then go back and look at your posts.
Do you have proof UFO's are extraterresterial? If so, let's see it.
And the term UFO clearly speaks for itself. If earlier on or at various times people have thought they were the product of an extraterrestrial intelligence has nothing to do with the term UFO. As stated earlier, your logic is very disjointed. UFO is the phenomena it is not the cause, it is the observation. Your logic is very fuzzy. You don't seem to be able to understand the difference between the observation and the cause.
So I am glad that you can applaude your intellectual prowness, because no one else here is doing same.
Last edited:
Big enough box, and yes you could. Stop wriggling.
Your interpretation of flying is already too broad.
That's not what Isaid. I said if something was flying, it's under some level of intelligent control. IE, it was designed and launched, or it is some animal.
The rock is not flying, because the rock is not generating any lift! A ballistic trajectory is not flight, DUH!