How We (Almost) Fell for UAPs - The Observer

While noting that the term "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena" has been around for over 70 years, The Observer passionately argues against it and its acronym as a replacement for unidentified flying objects. "That the federal government has embraced the UAP lingo may be reason enough to remain wary," suggests The Observer. Rich Reynolds has long opposed the UAP promotion, worrying now whether it's too late to stop the Success of the Deceivers? Perhaps not, for some mainstream articles much prefer "UFO" to "UAP." Case in point: Interesting Engineering's UFO: Everything we Know So Far about the Flying Saucer Phenomena. Rupendra Brahambhatt's subheading "All the secrets about UFOs you need to know" is obviously an exaggeration and there are some typical "mainstream-type" weaknesses, but the UFO history article runs about 20/1 in favor of the "UFO" term. Finally, the Financial Times brings up the numbers in UFOs: Close Encounters of the Statistical Kind. While claiming it's "arguably the world's most influential column of its kind," the opinion piece (and its commenters) lack a breadth of knowledge about UFOs, though generally taking the term and its reference seriously. (WM)

_{-- Delivered by Feed43 service}

from THE ANOMALIST https://bit.ly/3NzIUWp