UFOs and aliens are so strongly linked in Western culture
that many people consider the terms interchangeable.
It's why people ask you if you "believe in aliens" when they want to know your opinion on UFOs.
But referring to UFOs as "aliens" prejudices one of many explanations for the UFO data,
and invites commentary from astronomers and exobiologists where it's not necessarily relevant.
By engaging in debate on the chances of extraterrestrial visitation,
ufologists fall for a straw man argument, and are diverted from discussion of UFO sightings.
Here's why it's important that we talk about UFOs, not aliens,
and approach them independently of the search for extraterrestrial life.
First, strictly speaking, a UFO can't be an alien.
By definition, an unidentified flying object cannot be identified as anything;
all UFOs are necessarily unknown.
The term "UFO" was introduced by the US Air Force in the early 1950s
precisely to avoid implying extraterrestrial origins,
as the then-popular term, "flying saucer" did.
It was intended as a neutral descriptor to refer to the body of Air Force reports that
had not yet been explained, or defied previous attempts at explanation.
Using "UFO" as a synonym for "extraterrestrial spacecraft" is inherently contradictory,
and it spoils an otherwise neutral label.
We have an empirical basis on which to say that UFOs exist.
Whatever you think they are there is no question that people have seen things in the sky that we can't identify.
The US Air Force collected UFO reports for at least 22 years, and other world governments,
as well as a few private organizations, continue to do so today.
Many studies have attempted to provide explanations for these reports,
and all have left a certain percentage unexplained.
In the best cases, there are multiple types of evidence involved.
We have eyewitness testimony, radar data, physical traces in the environment,
and an abundance of video and photographic evidence to establish the fact
that sometimes we observe flying objects that we can't explain.
Aliens, on the other hand, are just a human construct - at least for now.
They're the product of informed conjecture from astronomers, science fiction writers, and philosophers,
and not something actually observed or measured.
Despite all the good reasons we have to believe that they are out there,
we have no direct evidence that aliens exist.
We can calculate the probability of ET visitation with a modified Drake Equation,
or speculate on the forms that aliens might take, or the technologies they might employ.
But in the end we have absolutely no data on aliens themselves.
For all we've been able to prove directly, we're still alone in the universe.
It's often argued that real UFOs are alien spacecraft, so we're justified in calling them "aliens."
While this may turn out to be the case, it is far from a proven fact,
and some of ufology's greatest thinkers, including J. Allen Hynek and Jacques Vallée,
as well as many leading voices today, have mounted strong arguments
against the extraterrestrial hypothesis.
Until we can prove that alien beings are truly responsible for UFOs,
it is presumptuous and unscientific to suggest it in our language.
Besides, how can we say that UFOs are aliens, when we don't yet know that aliens exist?
Invoking some undiscovered civilization as a way to account for UFOs
is using one mystery to explain another.
Referring to UFOs as aliens is not just a semantic error:
it leads to a great deal of confusion over what exactly we're talking about, and what we're trying to prove.
When someone mentions aliens, they might be referring to hypothetical extraterrestrial beings,
or they might be referring to the unidentified objects observed here on earth and within Earth's orbit.
These are two very different subjects that rely on completely different bodies of data,
vastly different methodologies, and widely divergent specializations.
When we call UFOs "aliens," we perpetuate an erroneous assumption about the phenomenon:
that "real" UFOs - or those left unexplained after scientific investigation - are actually aliens.
In other words, the only positive answer to the UFO question is that all UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft.
This assumption reduces the question to a false binary:
either UFOs are alien spacecraft, or they don't exist.
But there are many possible explanations for UFOs, including time travelers,
psychic projections, and shared hallucinations.
What's more, referring to UFOs as aliens implies that ufology is just a branch
of the wider search for extraterrestrial intelligence, or SETI,
and it opens the door to armchair debunkers who prefer to talk aliens whenever UFOs come up.
It's no accident that debunkers constantly steer attention away from UFOs
and towards speculation on extraterrestrial life.
Most popular skeptics don't know the UFO data well enough to comment on it,
and it's much easier for them to attack a strawman argument for alien visitation.
Debunkers reason that if they can cast doubt on the likelihood of alien life, or space travel,
they can consequently dismiss the notion that there is anything extraordinary in the UFO data.
But this is a theory-dependent argument that means nothing if UFOs are anything but alien spaceships.
The strategy only works because we so commonly confuse UFOs with aliens,
and not because it refutes any of the data, or provides an explanation.
By referring to UFOs as aliens, ufologists frame the debate in debunkers' favour,
and set them up with a straw man.
Searching for ET is an enormous undertaking.
With all the planets out there capable of harboring life, the search could be endless,
and it's not clear that our current methods will ever find what we're looking for.
Explaining UFO sightings, however, is a much more focused task
that doesn't require us to search beyond the Earth's orbit.
UFOs are terrestrial phenomenon, and all the data we have for them are right here.
So why look to space?
Think about it - what could we really learn about UFOs by scouting other planets?
Even if SETI could find positive proof of life beyond Earth - say, on Europa -
we would be no closer to finding out what 10,000 spectators saw over Artemio Franchi stadium
on October 27th, 1954, for example,
or what the citizens of Phoenix, Arizona saw glide over the treetops on March 13, 1997.
Did they see craft developed by the aliens on Europa,
or by the alien civilizations on any one of the countless other potentially life-harboring planets in the universe?
Proving the alien life exists does not prove that it's visited us on Earth,
and it doesn't retroactively explain past mysteries.
What's more, even if we could definitively prove that ET (don't) exist,
or could never reach Earth, we would still not solve the UFO question.
Eliminating the possibility of alien visitation can only tell us what UFOs are not;
it can't tell us what they are.
And doing so would not suddenly make all the unexplained cases in the archives disappear.
Even if the extra-terrestrial hypothesis were removed from consideration,
the UFO data would still require explanation.
The answer to the UFO question cannot be solved by looking out in space,
even if that's where the culprits are.
If we're going to establish a definitive connection between UFOs and aliens,
then we're going to have to do it on the basis of what we observe when they visit us.
The more we confuse the terms UFOs and aliens in our discourse,
the more we confuse the subjects in our minds.
Referring to UFOs as "aliens" invites irrelevant commentary from other disciplines,
and distracts from the task of explaining UFO reports.
In order to achieve a more focused, data conscious debate on UFOs,
we must disassociate the subject from extraterrestrial life, and bring our attention back to the evidence.
So let's talk about UFOs and leave the aliens to SETI.
(Sources listed in the video description.)