Shedding the Skeptic's Skin

UFO: Unidentified Flying Object. Never in our 'acknowledged' history has there been a more controversial abbreviated title within the human language. Mention the word UFO, and a veritable barrage of facial expressions inevitably follow upon most listener's faces, betraying their own inadequate ability to clarify a proper image within their cerebral tissues. Though they may have some idea of what a UFO looks like, their attempt at fixating upon an agreeably concrete physical depiction is, and continues to be, greatly hindered by the contaminated influences of both media and so-called authoritarian figures to which they turn for answers.

Case and point, Professor Andrew Fraknoi stated last week (July 6) while lecturing at the Partners in Astronomy conference at the University of Toronto: "UFO's have a terrestrial explanation. Many sightings are really of the planet Venus. Others are planes, meteors or a flock of birds with reflective oily underbellies." Heated debate withstanding, this statement is a slap in the face to all those sightings' witnesses of equal and/or greater academic credibility; including Air Force pilots, astronauts, and even past Presidents of the USA!

However, what I would like to focus on in this article, is in fact the term UFO. Quite frankly, it is an incorrect term to utilize. Period. 'Unidentified' implies that the object in question was unrecognizable and not discernible; unable to be perceived with the senses. Thousands of sightings obviously debunk this labeling. Descriptions are often incredibly detailed, and include structure/shape, illumination, trajectory, speed, size, etc.; as well as statements of contradiction such as, "it was not a plane", "it was too big to be Venus", "it moved back and forth, then shot straight up...not like a meteor". Clearly UFO's are being identified! A more appropriate label would be 'anomalous'; something that deviates from the general rule or the usual type, an irregularity or inconsistency.

The term 'Flying' is also incorrect. Flight is controlled movement through the air. It does not include the zero-gravity of space, nor the denser realm of underwater. In effect, it limits the scope of understanding necessary for proper qualitative analysis of UFO's, by categorizing them as 'atmospheric-only objects'. This is as absurd as calling the Space Shuttle an airplane. Better suited would be the word 'aerodynamic', which encompasses the interaction between a physical 'body' and its movement through ANY medium, from outerspace to innerspace, from macroverse to microverse; no exclusions.

And finally, we have the term 'Object'. By its very definition, it is limited to a 'solid' form. That is, it negates the possibility of UFO's being anything other than of three-dimensional construct! Once again, an outmoded ideology of 1940's vocabulary inflicting its suppressive influence on current investigative understandings; simply put, it is a pariah. Of greater respectability is the term 'phenomena'; something perceived as both wondrous and remarkable, that which is extraordinary. So which label has a greater appeal of credibility? UFO: Unidentified Flying Object? Or AAP (double-A P): Anomalous Aerodynamic Phenomena? I submit the latter. If we are to ever succeed at gaining the necessary acknowledgment for global acceptance of the scientific pursuit of UFO's, we must endeavor to clearly illustrate our seriousness. Rejecting the excessively propagandized historical label of UFO as insufficient and prejudicial, will initiate a renewed interest within the field of Anomalous Aerodynamic Phenomena; one worthy of not only the academia's acclaim, but of our own as an intellectually advanced race.

Go To Page: 1 2

Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic