For me, I can't decide which definition I like for UFO better:
Unidentified Finally Over
Understanding Flying Objects
Uniformed Figure Observing
Either way, it's the end of an era, and a long era, at that. People must have thought Edward ruppelT was doing us a favor when he gave us that term. Little did they realize the possibilities of how much it would hold back society from figuring out what extra terrestrial spacecraft were.
All the government, military, aeronautical, astronautical, pilots, and flying enthusiasts the world over need a category to place vehicles that transit through our atmosphere and/or make passes just outside it. By making the TLA as general as possible, it is a catch-all for every possibility in the sky. Or is it?
The main problem with the term is the word "Flying." The possibility that extra terrestrial spacecraft are not actually flying but instead are performing a currently not understood technology and/or process of maneuvering, such as vectating (vectored levitation), seems to be of little concern over the past 75 years.
When you mention the term UFO, the average person automatically associates it with an extra terrestrial spacecraft. The more technical person knows it is a catch-all phrase that could mean almost anything.
Whether it is because society is unwilling or unable is difficult to tell but the inability to archive that word and come up with more accurate appropriate terminology to explain extra terrestrial spacecraft has left us with a situation that even a kluge would be overly generous as a description.
Imagine the possibility of Hetlau running a Hextocracy and a Hextary. A civilian poses the question to them: "Do UFOs exist?"
They are told "NO" and the civilian feels they are being lied to.
Once you really understand what is going on, you realize there is no such thing as a UFO. It is basically the same thing as asking: "does nothing exist?" If whatever it is is known to someone, then it's not a UFO just because you don't know what it is.
If it is an extra terrestrial spacecraft and extra terrestrial spacecraft don't fly then, it's not a UFO, as well. So when someone asks a Hetlau in the Hextocracy or Hextary: "do UFOs exist?" All that person has to do is think are extra terrestrial spacecraft UFOs? No, then no, they don't exist and they are actually telling you the truth.
All the while you think they are lying to you because you know extra terrestrial spacecraft exist, but because you don't understand ETI you are posing the question to them incorrectly.
So rather than wasting 75 more years going around in circles and going nowhere, the key is to archive the term UFO as legacy and start using
CTV—Celestial Tach One Vehicle. Why CTV?
Did you know Tach One is the term for the speed of light, similar to how mach one is the term for the speed of sound? Do you see how the term Celestial Tach one Vehicle (CTV) better represents what they are than UFO? Celestial as in they are from other star systems. Tach One as in they travel faster than Tach One at Tach numbers. They are vehicles, not objects.
Notice how advanced Earthing jets travel at mach numbers? Even commercial airliners measure their cruising speed as a percentage of mach one. So it's not to difficult to see that Volutes (UFOs) could employ the same concept just using light instead of sound to measure speed.
What will happen, though, is a very interesting phenomenon in and of itself. So many people identify the term UFO with extra terrestrial spacecraft and so many people make money, possibly even a complete living, off the term UFO that they won't wont to change.
Basically, the desire to know what is really going on and get disclosure will run directly into the status quo and change. Society will not want to have to start using a new TLA to solve the ET and UFO dilemma, and they will spend more time trying to understand why they just can't solve it with UFO than trying to learn what a CTV is and solving it.
Just remember: when you hear ET, think HET.
When you hear UFO, think CTV.
Follow me on vocal media for more stories at: