Everybody’s abuzz about the Pentagon’s UFO report, to be released some time this month.
Natch, I’ve long been a skeptic about the notion that something extraordinary is going on with these sightings of apparently impossible craft. The Pentagon, however, given a series of remarkable recordings and observations by jet pilots going back to at least 2004, is beginning to take some UFO sightings seriously.
Their report promises to be great fun.
No doubt you’ve noticed that the term “UAP”—for “unidentified aerial phenomenon”—is replacing “UFO.” I suspect that this terminological switcheroo is an effort by the task force to distance themselves from earlier UFO discussions and opiners. They’re saying: “Forget about that nasty old UFO debate; let’s start afresh, focusing on this remarkable new info!”
Perhaps someone has offered a more substantive rationale for the "UFO/UAP" switcheroo, but I am as yet unfamiliar with it.
Meanwhile, I offer these reflections.
* * *
A. Aren't the terms "UFO" and "UAP" pretty much the same?
A case can be made for supposing that the two terms—UFO and UAP—are essentially equivalent. After all, a “phenomenon” can be an object.
The OED’s first definition of “phenomenon” is as follows:
1. A thing which appears, or which is perceived or observed; a particular (kind of) fact, occurrence, or change as perceived through the senses or known intellectually; esp. a fact or occurrence, the cause or explanation of which is in question.
Since the 16th Century, “phenomenon” has been used (among speakers of English) to refer to an observed thing, but also to a perceived “fact or occurrence” —in need of explanation.
The OED also notes a philosophical usage that appeared in the 17th Century:
3. An immediate object of sensation or perception (often as distinguished from a real thing or substance); a phenomenal or empirical object (as opposed to a thing in itself).
This sense of “phenomenon” no longer regards the referent as an actual thing but rather a subjective sense datum or image that may or may not correspond to, and caused by, an actual thing in objective reality. To the extent that this sense of “phenomenon” has infected/influenced the original “object or occurrence” sense, replacement of UFO with UAP might suggest a move to a less naïve concept: the phenomenon as an apparent object, i.e., one that might not correspond with any actual thing. An impression or sense datum.
But there’s an obvious problem with keeping the “unidentified flying X” motif but replacing “object” with “sense datum” or “impression.” Sense data don’t fly. A UFO or a UAP is a flying or aerial entity. As such, it is a concrete thing in the air, not some subjective image or impression in someone’s consciousness.
* * *
B. Whence "UFO"?
Evidently, the term “UFO” was coined by the U.S. Air Force in the early 50s:
The term "UFO" (or "UFOB") was coined in 1953 by the United States Air Force (USAF) to serve as a catch-all for all such reports. In its initial definition, the USAF stated that a "UFOB" was "any airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object". Accordingly, the term was initially restricted to that fraction of cases which remained unidentified after investigation, as the USAF was interested in potential national security reasons and "technical aspects"…. (Wikipedia)
The term “UFO” has always struck me as sensible. There are, of course, numerous “identified” flying objects: ordinary birds, planes, helicopters, balloons, etc. And there are occasional flying objects the nature of which one is ignorant (imagine being among the first to see a roaring propeller-less aircraft!). Those objects require identification. So we speak of “unidentified flying objects.” Good.
The only problem with the original term “UFO” is its assumption or implication that all “such reports” are reports of actual flying objects. As we know, at least some UFO sightings/reports have turned out to be optical illusions, such as those caused by the autokinetic effect (—you know: a stationary point of light begins to seem to move). A UFO report (of a flying object in the night sky) caused by the autokinetic effect involves no actual flying or even aerial object.
But it’s still a UFO, right?
This fault strikes me as minor, no reason to abandon an otherwise sensible term.
* * *
C. The case against “UFO”
The real issue with the term UFO is that it has gradually developed a new meaning, and that new meaning makes it problematical, a source of confusion.
How often have we heard someone ask, “Do you believe in UFOs?”? The questioner assumes that a UFO isn’t simply an unidentified flying object, for it is clear that plenty of those exist. He or she assumes that a UFO is something extraordinary, such as a vehicle piloted by extraterrestrials. Do we believe in THAT sort of thing? That's their question.
Some dictionaries now recognize this meaning of “UFO.” The 2nd definition of “UFO” in the Collins Dictionary (American English) is the following:
a spacecraft from another planet; flying saucer
In my experience, for a great many speakers of American English, a UFO is indeed a flying saucer (i.e., a technology beyond human capability) or “a spacecraft from another planet”—or solar system or galaxy.
Even educated speakers embrace this usage. I did a quick Google search (for “UFO”) and noticed that, today, someone wrote an article entitled, “The government says UFOs are real. What's next?” If UFOs are simply flying objects that are unidentified, then their reality is largely a non-issue. Their reality is an issue (to this author) because he assumes that UFOs are craft that do things that, as far as we know, can’t be done, not by us. They are extraordinary craft, not just unidentified things.
(Alternatively, I suppose that the author might be asking this question: are UFOs really what they appear to be—i.e., extraordinarily fast and nimble craft? Accordingly, a UFO is an apparent extraordinarily-advanced flying craft. See below.)
For these reasons, I agree that we should abandon the term “UFO,” such as it now is. We need a term for flying objects that require identification—the term that the Air Force provided more than 60 years ago—and, owing to the loose talk and sloppy thought of many a knucklehead, "UFO" is no longer that term!
* * *
 |
| "Flying saucer" in Orange County, 1965 |
D. The case against "UAP"
But there is an obvious reason not to replace UFO with UAP. It is the widespread failure—at least among Americans—to understand the singular and plural forms of the noun “phenomenon.”
- one phenomenon
- two phenomena
I just watched a dozen or so video news reports concerning the awaited Pentagon UAP document. Many of these reporters speak of Navy flyers experiencing “an unidentified aerial phenomena.”
“A phenomena." —Good grief.
* * *
E. A recommendation
How about “apparent, unidentified flying objects” (AUFOs)? Sounds good to me, plus it repairs the minor defect of the original “UFO.”
I do kinda hope that these weird apparent objects that those Navy fliers have observed turn out to be real and awesome, and not just figments perpetrated by nasty foreigners hacking our equipment — or something even more prosaic.
I don't think that that will happen, but I can hope!
Klaatu barada nikto.
 |
| I want to believe. But I don't. Not yet. |
