what kind of “atmospheric event” is being shown in those pictures, then? Or was the “atmospheric event” a coincidence that just happened to show up in the same vicinity as somebody making a UFO light projection over an airport, which also just happened to coincide with the airport being shutdown for no reason by the government? That’s even more ridiculous than the conspiracy theory.
The atmospheric event could’ve coincided with the light show. As for government conspiracies, well, they come up after the fact.
Do you have any evidence that this is a UFO?
yeah, the fact that it was flying and nobody can identify what it was is evidence that it was an Unidentified Flying Object
Sure, if you want the pedantic definition, but a “UFO” is usually defined in lay terms as being synonymous with a flying saucer/alien spacecraft. If a tribesman in Africa saw a plane for the first time and didn’t know what it was, would it be a “UFO”?
If you’re using “UFO” as synonymous with “spacecraft” then I can’t imagine why you’d ask me that question, since I haven’t alleged that it was a spacecraft.
Fine. I was using the “spacecraft” definition as most people think of when they hear the acronym “UFO”. The term “UAP” (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon) is used by people who want to distinguish between alien spacecraft and any sort of flying object that is unexplained.
(It might not even be an object in this story.)
Spies!
I do believe that if the aerial phenomena are perceived as objects, they’re better described as UFO.
The fact the sky contains so many light sources, light refractions, light reflections, and chemical interactions immediately discredits claims of any UAPs (that aren’t objects), so to insist non-alien objects should be called UAPs insults the credibility of the object’s observers. Thus someone using the term UAP is immediately labeled an arrogant dick who, although smart enough to realize not everything is alien in origin, is still unable to accept that the term UFO can apply to anything which is flying and unidentified.
Either that or he’s just a dick being too worrysome about confusing twelve-year-old kids who have only heard the term UFO in the context of spotting alien vessels.
It’s a UFO. Don’t talk down to this forum’s kids. They’ll never learn UFOs aren’t all alien unless you talk about unidentified flying objects made by man. Until then, you’re just delaying the problem by creating a separate category for strange skyish sights - - a horridly broad category.
Spaceships, alien vessels, extraterrestrial craft: these are all terms that exist to describe what you want “UFO” be limited to describing.
However, “UFO” is synonymous with “spaceships, alien vessels, [and] extraterrestrial craft” in current linguistics. Sure, it can be attributed to simply any object that flies that you can’t identify, but I doubt that anyone would point to something in the sky and call it a “UFO” simply because you don’t know what it is.
If that makes me an “arrogant dick” then so be it.
what? that’s exactly what people do… that’s exactly what the vast majority of UFO sightings are - people seeing something in the sky that they can’t explain. Cases where people specifically see a spacecraft are incredibly rare, most reports are just points of light that people call UFOs because they can’t identify the source. I’m not saying there are no implications to the term, but I’m also not saying the implications are correct.
As far as the term “UAP” I don’t use it generically because the British ministry of defense uses it (in declassified research, google it) to describe specific types of atmospheric plasma formations. So I limit my use of the term to describe UFOs which I think fit that particular category - typically dark triangular objects with points of light at each corner. These photos don’t appear to fit the description, so I’m using the generic ‘UFO’ to describe it.
Typically, where I come from, if they don’t know what something is but they don’t think it’s an alien spacecraft, they say, “What is that thing?” not “It’s a UFO.”
Maybe it’s different where you are.
Maybe where you’re from the ABC News report we’re discussing would be titled “What is that thing Over Chinese Airport Prompts Probe” but in the [COLOR=‘Black’]non-autistic …real world we use the term UFO to describe flying objects we can’t identify, and the news report we’re talking about is titled “UFO Over Chinese Airport Prompts Probe” and by the way i just saw what they did there
Autism = Incorrect perception of acronyms
It carries those connotations because we’re pretty good at identifying terrestrial flyers, but by definition it can never be a solid synonym. To give it that treatment only fuels the confusion you hope to avoid.
autism =“impaired social interaction and communication” for example as starting arguments over the commonly accepted definition of words
nice sig btw [COLOR=‘Black’]you naughty autie
So, when you started the argument over the commonly-accepted definition of the word “UFO”… :3
(You’ll note that the topic of extraterrestrials came up before this little discussion.)
Common acceptance, eh? I can live with that… let’s take a vote! 
The topic of religion tends to come up when mentioning unlikely events, but I wouldn’t call good luck a synonym for the miraculous (or bad luck a synonym for the cursed).
So, basically what you’re all saying here is that I see UFOs every day. :rolleyes:
Let’s see what happens if I say that outside the context of this thread.
This has opened my eyes. I now completely believe in aliens that show specific interest in this planet.
hahahahahhaha rofl yes, you nailed it, the religious belong in straightjackets.