Patrick Reany
5 August 2023
I'm in a confusion about where to get a truly authoritative definition of the acronym UAP.
One source calls it an 'unidentified anomalous phenomena' and another calls it a
'unidentified aerial phenomena'. I'm going to go with the latter identification. Another
source claims that the reason for the government introducing the acronym UAP was to
disassociate UFOs from 'alien' phenomena, though not removing the possibility of it.
I'm going to justify the introduction of the notion of an 'unidentified aerial phenomena'
(or 'unidentified atmospheric phenomena') because there are phenomena in the skies
that are both 'object-like' and 'non-objectlike'. So, we can think of UAP as either 1) a
generalization of the UFO concept to include non-object-like phenomena, or we can
think of it as an additional classification altogether, that we should have had all along,
that complements the UFO concept.
I once saw a UFO. My story of it is here My UFO Story.
What I saw was real but very
strange. It was flying in the air (more like floating slowly), and it definitely looked
solid and with a well-defined boundary, thus, like an 'object'.
So, what do we normally think of something that is object-like? Generally speaking,
an object has a definite shape and at least the appearance of some form of solidity,
if only its outer frame or shell. An inflated party balloon is definitely of a constant
shape, and though not very heavy, still has some apparent mass to it. But could we
say the same thing about a puff of smoke or a wisp of steam coming out of a coffee
cup? Well, there are aerial phenomena that are wispy and amorphous or cloud-like. If
we can't identify those phenomena as 'object-like', those are UAPs.
And how should we identify a strange, moving point-source of light against a dark sky?
Is it really light emitted from a small object, or is it light penetrating into our
'dimension' from another dimension? My point is that we may not know, and perhaps
we should leave the question of its true nature left open, rather than rush to judgment.
The notion of UAP can cover this too.
Should we regard UAP as just a fancy replacement term for UFO? According to the
arguments I made above, no. I believe that both terms have their usefulness, and
accepting them does not require one to believe in extraterrestrials. I sure don't.
I mean, how am I supposed to take ETs seriously when all they seem to be able to do
is to crash their starships into the earth?
If, in the end, the true meaning of UAP is 'unidentified anomalous phenomena' then
that would be a catch-all term. Just the same, I think that that meaning is way too
broad, for it would include anomalies in the water and in the ground as well. And I
should point out that the notion of 'anomaly' is already contained in the notion of
'unidentified'. Just my thoughts on it.