The trap of dogmatic skepticism

[Yazata]

So, you agree that the U still stands for unidentified.

And the A now stands for 'anomalous'.

Bullshit, you seem to be the one insisting you know what they are.

I think that the idea is that these are reports with characteristics that prevent easy classification of whatever was seen/detected/recorded into one of the more familiar categories.

 

[DaveC426913]

And if, after an intelligent back-and-forth where both of you lay out your arguments, your opponent fails to surrender and accede to everything you say (which rarely happens in real life), just agree to disagree.
...

You don't have to agree with those you argue with. Just agree to disagree without all the emotional stuff.

This is a science forum, not an 'agree to disagree' forum.

There are standards to maintain, honesty and integrity to uphold. Lies and bad faith arguing can and should be aggressively discouraged.

Otherwise, just go to Reddit or 4Chan or whatever.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think that the idea is that these are reports with characteristics that prevent easy classification of whatever was seen/detected/recorded into one of the more familiar categories.

Whose idea? MR's? No.

MR is aggressively pursuing his argument that they are a single source phenomenon:

You keep forgetting about what the Pentagon's own AARO office turned up after analyzing hundreds of uap videos and photos. Conclusion? A single phenomenon with repeating characteristics such as no wings or rudders or thermal exhaust and speeds up to Mach 2. So who should we believe James? You or the Pentagon's own uap research office?

 

[Magical Realist]

"profile" (noun)

8. a set of characteristics or qualities that identify a type or category of person or thing: a profile of a typical allergy sufferer.

profile

Definition, Synonyms, Translations of profile by The Free Dictionary

www.thefreedictionary.com

Again, "of a person or thing". That's singular! One thing or phenomenon, not many different things.

 

[Yazata]

Whose idea?

Whoever renamed UAPs "Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena"

I was just trying to clarify the meaning of 'anomalous'

anomaly /ə-nŏm′ə-lē/

noun​

1. Deviation or departure from the normal or common order, form, or rule.
2. One that is peculiar, irregular, abnormal, or difficult to classify.
3. The angular deviation, as observed from the sun, of a planet from its perihelion.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition

 

[DaveC426913]

Whoever renamed UAPs "Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena"

I was just trying to clarify the meaning of 'anomalous'

anomaly /ə-nŏm′ə-lē/

noun​

1. Deviation or departure from the normal or common order, form, or rule.
2. One that is peculiar, irregular, abnormal, or difficult to classify.
3. The angular deviation, as observed from the sun, of a planet from its perihelion.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition

OK. Yes. That is a good update.

 

[James R]

Really? James claims that I know they are alien spaceships and little green men.

Stop telling lies. As you are fully aware, because I have made myself very clear on this point in past responses to you, all I claim about you is that you claim that UAPs are not "unidentified", but on the contrary are some sort of "non-mundane" phenomenon.

You are on the record as saying you believe that all the unidentified UAPs are essentially the same thing, and you have claimed that you know that thing is not anything familiar or "everyday" or "mundane".

Every now and then you drop the ball while you're trolling, and make a specific, ridiculous, claim about how you supposedly believe all the UAPs are actually aquatic spaceships built by the super-intelligent species that you claim lives at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, or that all the UAPs are "intelligent plasmoid entities", or some other nonsensical rubbish invented out of whole cloth.

I have been very clear that when I speak about "little green men" or "alien spaceships" to you, I am using those terms as stand-ins for whatever woo you claim you believe all the UAPs are, this week.

So what do you think I know they are?

Of course you don't know what they are. You have no interest in ever finding out. And whenever somebody else does a bit of investigation and helpfully informs you that why a particular UAP was the planet Venus or a weather balloon, you simply deny it.

"WHAT DOES UAP MEAN?​

UAP is an abbreviation of unidentified aerial phenomenon (or phenomena), a term that refers to things observed in the sky that cannot be identified as aircraft or other known phenomena."--- https://www.dictionary.com/e/acronyms/uap/

That's a completely useless definition. Nobody knows, a priori, what unknown things can or cannot be identified. The best we can ever say is that some unknown thing has not yet been identified.

There are no examples - none, zero, zilch, zip - of any identified UAP that has not been identified as a regular aircraft or other known phenomenon.

 

[James R]

Whose idea? MR's? No.

MR is aggressively pursuing his argument that they are a single source phenomenon:

Let's not forgot MR's statements in the past, including such gems as "UAPs are craft". He went on to allege that all the UAP "craft" have pilots, as well. He regularly assumes (and states) that he believes all the UAPs have "intentions" and "aims" and the like. He pretends to believe that they are all controlled by intelligent non-human beings (or ghosts, or human time travellers from the future, or lizard men, or whatever).

The problem the troll faces is that his past posts are on record. A very long and boring and repetitive record, but a record none the less.

 

[Magical Realist]

There are no examples - none, zero, zilch, zip - of any identified UAP that has not been identified as a regular aircraft or other known phenomenon.

An identified unidentified anomalous phenomenon? LOL! I think you mean an IMP--an identified mundane phenomenon. Sure...none of those have not been identified as a known object or phenomenon. But UAPS? No..As per the definition I quoted they cannot be explained as a known object or phenomenon. That's why it's now referred to as an unidentified ANOMALOUS phenomenon.

 

[James R]

An identified unidentified anomalous phenomenon? LOL! I think you mean an IMP--an identified mundane phenomenon.

You know what I meant. What a troll you are.

But UAPS? No..As per the definition I quoted they cannot be explained as a known object or phenomenon.

This, straight after I posted post #47?

Nobody is actually as stupid as you pretend to be. What a troll you are.

 

[Magical Realist]

That's a completely useless definition. Nobody knows, a priori, what unknown things can or cannot be identified. The best we can ever say is that some unknown thing has not yet been identified.

Not a priori. AFTER they have analyzed the video or photo and ruled out all known mundane phenomena. That's when they can say it is truly an unidentified anomalous phenomenon. You don't think that's possible? Of course it is. It's how the AARO weeded out all those videos of mundane objects and ended up with just the videos of the metallic spherical UAPs. There's only really just a few mundane things a UAP can be after all. When those are all ruled out then it is truly an anomalous and unknown phenomenon that cannot be identified as a known object or phenomenon. Make sense now? Good..See post https://www.sciforums.com/threads/ufos-uaps-explanations.160045/post-3728593 for an example.

 

[Yazata]

I don't think skeptics believe in uaps anymore, certainly not in the new sense it has come to mean... Dogmatic skeptics generally deny uaps are any kind of unidentified anomalous phenomena. But now it is part of the acronym, so they will have to reject their very existence it seems. Dogmatic skeptics think all uaps are really just imps-- identified mundane phenomena. IOW balloons or birds or conventional aircraft or drones or camera flare or meteorites or yes....even the planet Venus! But never an unidentified and anomalous phenomenon.

You're in good company saying that, MR.

Read what Senators Schumer, Rounds, Rubio and Gillibrand have to say on pages 8 through 11 in this proposed piece of legislation:

https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/uap_amendment.pdf#page=8

(19) Temporarily Non-Attributed Objects

(A) In General. ---The term "temporarily non-attributed objects" means the class of objects that temporarily resist prosaic attribution by the initial observer... Although some unidentified anomalous phenomena may at first be interpreted as temporarily non-attributed objects, and the two categories are mutually exclusive.

(B) further defines termporarily non-attributed objects to include natural celestial and meteorological phenomena, along with mundane man-made aerial objects and clutter.

(21) Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena

(A) In General. --- The term "unidentified anomalous phenomena" means any object operating or judged capable of operating in outer space, the atmosphere, ocean surfaces or undernsea lacking prosaic attribution due to performance characteristics and properties not previous;ly known to be achievable based on commonly accepted physical principles. Unidentified anomalous phenomena are differentiated from both attributed and temporarily non-attributed objects by one or more of the following observables:

(i) Instantaneous acceleration absent apparent inertia.

(ii) Hypersonic velocity absent a thermal signature and sonic shockwave.

(iii) Transmedium (such as space-to-ground or air-to-undersea) travel.

(iv) Positive lift contrary to known aerodynamic principles.

(v) Multispectral signature management.

I'm inclined to agree with MR that the skeptics are generally agreed that temporarily non-attributed objects will all reduce to attributed objects without remainder, provided that enough information is available. Hence the unidentified anomalous phenomena class will have to be an empty set.

 

[Sarkus]

I'm inclined to agree with MR that the skeptics are generally agreed that temporarily non-attributed objects will all reduce to attributed objects without remainder, provided that enough information is available. Hence the unidentified anomalous phenomena class will have to be an empty set.

Skeptics will likely hold this view. Not just the dogmatic ones. Every current UAP that has defied explanation would still fit within the scope of "Temporarily Non-Attributed Objects" as defined. Only when we actually know that it is something describing one or more characteristics listed, and has no possibility of being something mundane (including the result of s/w or h/w glitches), could one reasonably move it to being an (as defined above) UAP. And we've never done that with any case thus far. At least nothing in the public sphere.

No case thus far presented anywhere would currently satisfy the requirements, as defined above, to be considered a UAP. To say otherwise is to make unwarranted assumptions about what the case might or might not be. That's not to say one might not arise, but the bar, as worded above, is significant, and I'm not sure our resident "believers" recognise that.

Note, this is simply a complaint / criticism about what is quoted above, the definitions as worded.
Of course, people may not interpret the wording in the same way, and may think that many cases have gone beyond "TNAO" status.

For example, no case based on a single image can be classified as a UAP. Period. Irrespective of witness testimony. A single image can not evidence any of the 5 items listed, and any supporting witness testimony could be erroneous, no matter how well-intentioned. Thus they would at best remain "TNAO".
"Believers" may not appreciate that that is what the above results in, but it would, or at least should if the logic of the text is followed.

 

[Magical Realist]

No case thus far presented anywhere would currently satisfy the requirements, as defined above, to be considered a UAP.

Really? What about the Naval encounter with the 40 ft long tic tac that occurred near Catalina Island in 2004? Seems to meet all 5 of the criteria for being a UAP as now defined. The whole series of events are described here:

When Top Gun Pilots Tangled with a Baffling Tic‑Tac‑Shaped UFO | HISTORY

Fighter pilots and radar operators from the USS Nimitz describe their terrifying—and still inexplicable—2004 encounter.

www.history.com

For example, no case based on a single image can be classified as a UAP. Period. Irrespective of witness testimony.

How so? If there are images of a UAP on video and they are backed up by eyewitness reports of the UAP's flight behavior, ofcourse they can meet the criteria. Is eyewitness testimony now suddenly excluded from being considered evidence of UAPs? Who made that decision? Skeptics?

I don't think all these criteria necessarily define each and every UAP case. There are some in which just some of the criteria may be met. No wings or rudders or control surfaces. No heat exhaust or visible means of propulsion and lift. The encounters described by Navy pilot Ryan Graves off the coast of Virginia Beach are good cases of that. The 1-4 meter metallic spheres that make "very interesting maneuvers" and that are seen "all over the world" are also good examples of that.

 

[Yazata]

Skeptics will likely hold this view. Not just the dogmatic ones.

I'm inclined to think that holding that view might be illustrative of dogmatism. It isn't dissimilar to what the proverbial "true believers" are accused of doing, except in reverse. Both have this big bag of 'temporarily non-attributed objects' and both are prejudging what the bag will end up containing, based on their pre-existing beliefs.

Every current UAP that has defied explanation would still fit within the scope of "Temporarily Non-Attributed Objects" as defined.

I think that both the Nimitz 'tic tac' reports from off San Diego and the reports from aviators off Norfolk would seem to qualify as Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena, as defined. In fact, I get the impression that the more extraordinary features of those particular cases helped guide the drafting of the list of defining characteristics in (21)(A) above. And I assume that there are additional cases that display similar characteristics, some very good (multiple observers, radar confirmation etc). The UFOlogy literature is filled with them, from all around the world (including the UK) dating back decades. So I assume that the US government has additional reports like these in their files.

And obviously, if they really do have crashed and recovered vehicles in secret laboratories somewhere, it's a whole new ball-game. I remain skeptical (in the sense of doubtful) about that, but I don't totally reject the possibility. It's definitely something that needs to be followed up on, and I applaud these Senators for doing that.

Only when we actually know that it is something describing one or more characteristics listed, and has no possibility of being something mundane (including the result of s/w or h/w glitches), could one reasonably move it to being an (as defined above) UAP. And we've never done that with any case thus far. At least nothing in the public sphere.

I agree that this material raises all kinds of epistemological issues. Just from its style, the Senate UAP criteria appear to have been drafted by attorneys, not philosophers. I would hope that Sciforums participants can find it within themselves to discuss this material intelligently, without all the personal insults and our always dividing up into angrily battling 'sides'. At the very least, it provides all of us with a fascinating problem case. We could all learn something if we approach this in a more academic fashion.

That said, I think that it's a mistake for us to set the bar so high that all possibility of error must be excluded. (That's the empty set.) We are fallible human beings after all, and no matter what proposition we assert, no matter how convinced we are of its truth, there will always be some remaining possibility that we are wrong. But going a step further and actually concluding that we are in fact wrong will require convincing evidence of error.

No case thus far presented anywhere would currently satisfy the requirements, as defined above, to be considered a UAP. To say otherwise is to make unwarranted assumptions about what the case might or might not be. That's not to say one might not arise, but the bar, as worded above, is significant, and I'm not sure our resident "believers" recognise that.

So if we might always be wrong, and none of the information that we are presented with is totally reliable, where should we begin? I'd say to begin with reports as given. If radar clocked a contact accelerating from a standing start to the speed of sound seemingly instantanously, that satisfies the UAP criterion right there. So does ascending to and decending from space in a matter of seconds.

Obviously evidence of radar malfunctions might be forthcoming that throws all that into doubt. So I would say that we have to accept the possibility that cases can subsequently be removed from the UAP category, provided that a convincing case can be made for doing so. And that will require evidence, not just a skeptic's belief that the UAP category must of some prior necessity always remain an empty set.

Note, this is simply a complaint / criticism about what is quoted above, the definitions as worded.
Of course, people may not interpret the wording in the same way, and may think that many cases have gone beyond "TNAO" status.

For example, no case based on a single image can be classified as a UAP. Period. Irrespective of witness testimony. A single image can not evidence any of the 5 items listed, and any supporting witness testimony could be erroneous, no matter how well-intentioned. Thus they would at best remain "TNAO".

Yes, I agree about single photos. Good point.

Addition of supporting testimony does seem to me to move a case in the UAP direction. But I would much prefer multiple trained observers (military aviators perhaps) corroborated by multiple modalities such as radar and photography/video.

So we are back at the question of weighting evidence. Some evidence just intutively seems stronger than others. Unfortunately, I don't know of any way to make that determination objective.

 

[Sarkus]

I'm inclined to think that holding that view might be illustrative of dogmatism.

The "dogmatic" skeptic start from the a priori position that the claim is impossible. And they work from there, finding otherwise irrational reasons to justify their position when they run out of rational ones. The same can, I agree, be said of "true believers".
The normal skeptic doesn't have that a priori assumption. They question, though. Why should we believe this, or that? Why should we accept it? When there is no rational reason not to accept a claim, they will accept it. With UAPs/UFOs we just haven't gotten anywhere close to reaching that for claims of "alien tech" or other such claims of cause.

I think one should also be mindful of referring to a skeptic as "dogmatic" just because one can't convince them of what one believes in. And I fear that this might be the case here.

It isn't dissimilar to what the proverbial "true believers" are accused of doing, except in reverse. Both have this big bag of 'temporarily non-attributed objects' and both are prejudging what the bag will end up containing, based on their pre-existing beliefs.

It's not about prejudging, per-se, but of whether one is at all willing to move something out of that bag. If I consider the rational position to be that a case is most likely an alien craft, for example, that's what I will think. A dogmatic skeptic, however, will consider them impossible, and will come up with irrational justification for sticking with that view.

It being hard to move something out of the "TNAO" bag doesn't make one a dogmatic skeptic. It just makes them a skeptic.

I think that both the Nimitz 'tic tac' reports from off San Diego and the reports from aviators off Norfolk would seem to qualify as Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena, as defined. In fact, I get the impression that the more extraordinary features of those particular cases helped guide the drafting of the list of defining characteristics in (21)(A) above. And I assume that there are additional cases that display similar characteristics, some very good (multiple observers, radar confirmation etc). The UFOlogy literature is filled with them, from all around the world (including the UK) dating back decades. So I assume that the US government has additional reports like these in their files.

While there may be classified information that is not available to the public, I honestly don't see how any of the publicly-available info warrants confirmation that these objects (if they were actual objects rather than glitches, for example) did the necessary things. Yes, there is testimony but I do not hold that particulary highly in the grand-scheme, and nor do I think the wording of the categorisations that you quoted.
Again, this is an issue with the wording /structure of what you quoted, not with these objects being unknown. I just think they've worded it such that we could rarely, if ever, classify something as a UAP.

I agree that this material raises all kinds of epistemological issues. Just from its style, the Senate UAP criteria appear to have been drafted by attorneys, not philosophers.

Never let philosophers draft anything, as you'd have a different version from each of them, and none of them quite being what you want!!

I would hope that Sciforums participants can find it within themselves to discuss this material intelligently, without all the personal insults and our always dividing up into angrily battling 'sides'. At the very least, it provides all of us with a fascinating problem case. We could all learn something if we approach this in a more academic fashion.

Aw. Spoilsport.

That said, I think that it's a mistake for us to set the bar so high that all possibility of error is excluded. We are fallible human beings after all, and no matter what proposition we assert, no matter how convinced we are of its truth, there will always be some remaining possibility that we are wrong. But going a step further and actually concluding that we are in fact wrong will require convincing evidence of error.

So if we might always be wrong, and none of the information that we are presented with is totally reliable, where should we begin?

It's a reasonable question - and I would start by asking why there needs to be this change, involving TNAO etc. Just a classification of UAPs - on a scale of 1 to 5, perhaps? This proposed change smacks of Rumsfeld's "known unknown and unknown unknowns" (not an exact quote)

I'd say to begin with reports as given. If radar clocked a contact accelerating from a standing start to the speed of sound seemingly instantanously, that satisfies the UAP criterion right there. So does ascending to and decending from space in a matter of seconds.

"the UAP criterion"? You mean as we might normally understand it? Sure. But not as per what you quoted, I think. But then I have no issue with there being UAPs / UFOs etc, only with the assertion that they are non-mundane etc (and by "mundane" I mean terrestrial, not the way you might prefer to use the term).

Obviously evidence of radar malfunctions might be forthcoming that throws all that into doubt. So I would say that we have to accept the possibility that cases can subsequently be removed from the UAP category, provided that a convincing case can be made for doing so. And that will require evidence, not just a skeptic's belief that the UAP category must of some prior necessity always remain an empty set.

Sure, but that would require the wording of the categories to allow for the non-empty set, which I don't think current/proposed wording does.
Again, I have no issues with the idea of UAPs/UFOs being out there... and I think the term "UAP" is self-explanatory as to what is covered and what should be in that set... is it an aerial phenomenon? Is it unknown? If yes to both then UAP it is.

As it is, though, I think they're trying to be too clever and do something that really isn't necessary, and doing it in a way that doesn't help.

 

[Magical Realist]

Sarkus you might wanna check out this video I just posted in the UAP thread. Your buddy Michio Kaku even weighs in on it! It is a clear example of a UAP performing maneuvers and reaching speeds specified in the new Congressional criteria for UAPs. And it certainly backs up eyewitness claims of UAPs' extraordinary flight characteristics.

UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

You're skating on very thin ice. And I see you've become all fatalistic about it: what will happen will happen. No doubt you (pretend to) believe in the Tarot. You've played your cards. Now you wait. You don't scare me with your bullyish threats. Everyone can see what a relentless and abusive...

www.sciforums.com

 

[Magical Realist]

Sarkus said: Again, I have no issues with the idea of UAPs/UFOs being out there... and I think the term "UAP" is self-explanatory as to what is covered and what should be in that set... is it an aerial phenomenon? Is it unknown? If yes to both then UAP it is.

The meaning of the acronym UAP has been officially changed by both the Dept of Defense and NASA to mean "unidentified anomalous phenomena". So by definition now it refers to anomalous and not mundane phenomena. See:

Following the Pentagon's lead, NASA expands its official definition of ‘UAP’

“To be consistent with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), NASA will be calling UAP ‘Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena’ instead of ‘Unidentified Aerial Phenomena,’” said Katherine Rohloff, press secretary for the space agency’s Science Mission Directorate.

fedscoop.com

 

[James R]

Not a priori. AFTER they have analyzed the video or photo and ruled out all known mundane phenomena.

No UAP video has ever been analysed in such a way that all known mundane phenomena can be ruled out.

For as long as a UAP remains U (unidentified), nobody can know that it won't turn out to be a known mundane phenomenon.

That's when they can say it is truly an unidentified anomalous phenomenon.

i.e. they can never say that. Not if we define the term the way you want it defined.

You don't think that's possible? Of course it is. It's how the AARO weeded out all those videos of mundane objects and ended up with just the videos of the metallic spherical UAPs.

The AARO hasn't ended up with just videos of UAPs that look like metallic spheres. There are lots of other unidentified things that don't look like metallic spheres.

The truth is that the AARO has, in some cases, managed to identify some UAPs. And - guess what! - all of the identified ones that we know about turned out to be known mundane phenomena.

That just leaves the ones that have not been identified yet, including some that look a bit like metallic spheres. But you don't know what those are, because they remain unidentified. So why pretend you know?

There's only really just a few mundane things a UAP can be after all.

History proves you wrong. People mistake lot of different mundane things for alien spaceships. It's quite common, you know.

When those are all ruled out then it is truly an anomalous and unknown phenomenon that cannot be identified as a known object or phenomenon. Make sense now?

Yes. Fine. The only remaining problem you face is that what you require is impossible: to rule out all mundane explanations that might account for somebody seeing something that nobody has yet identified.

 

[James R]

Read what Senators Schumer, Rounds, Rubio and Gillibrand have to say on pages 8 through 11 in this proposed piece of legislation:

https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/uap_amendment.pdf#page=8

(19) Temporarily Non-Attributed Objects

(A) In General. ---The term "temporarily non-attributed objects" means the class of objects that temporarily resist prosaic attribution by the initial observer...

This would seem to include everything traditionally referred to as a "UFO" and everything that the AARO and the military started calling UAPs, which first were labelled "unidentified aerial phenomena" and then, apparently, "unidentified anomalous phenomena".

The use of the word "attribution" is a strange choice here. Surely what matters is not what an initial observer "attributes" to a UFO sighting, but what the UFO actually is.

All objects that are unidentified by an initial observer will, by their nature, "temporarily resist ... attribution", prosaic or otherwise.

Following that temporary resistance, the initial observer will often try to apply an attribution to the UFO. As in "Maybe that's an alien spaceship!" or "Maybe that was a meteor!" or "Maybe that's the planet Venus!"

Why concentrate on the "initial observer". Surely we ought to be more concerned with the attributions from professional investigators and the like?

Although some unidentified anomalous phenomena may at first be interpreted as temporarily non-attributed objects, and the two categories are mutually exclusive.

This implies that nothing should be labelled an "unidentified anomalous phenomenon" until the temporary non-attribution problem is dispensed with in full.

If that's the case, then this attempt at redefining "UAP" yet again seems a lot more restrictive than the previous definitions we've all been using up to now.

(B) further defines termporarily non-attributed objects to include natural celestial and meteorological phenomena, along with mundane man-made aerial objects and clutter.

Only after they have been attributed, I hope!

(21) Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena

(A) In General. --- The term "unidentified anomalous phenomena" means any object operating or judged capable of operating in outer space, the atmosphere, ocean surfaces or undernsea lacking prosaic attribution due to performance characteristics and properties not previous;ly known to be achievable based on commonly accepted physical principles.

Let's assume that an object has been confirmed to be operating in outer space, with confirmed performance characteristics that have not been "attributed" to "prosaic" causes. In that case, it would seem that the object has been identified sufficiently for it to no longer warrant the label "unidentified". Better to use another label that recognises that the "outer spaceiness" of the thing has been positively IDed.

But okay. So, somebody is judging an unknown thing's performance characteristics and properties, measuring those against characteristics and properties based on commonly accepted physical principles. That sounds okay. It sounds like what skeptics do. And the thing is, after all, still unidentified.

Unidentified anomalous phenomena are differentiated from both attributed and temporarily non-attributed objects by one or more of the following observables:

(i) Instantaneous acceleration absent apparent inertia.

(ii) Hypersonic velocity absent a thermal signature and sonic shockwave.

(iii) Transmedium (such as space-to-ground or air-to-undersea) travel.

(iv) Positive lift contrary to known aerodynamic principles.

(v) Multispectral signature management.

Very few, if any, unidentified things are going to fit this new definition of "UAP".

I'm not aware that any object has ever been measured to undergo "instantaneous acceleration", for example. Or of any in-air object being measured to have achieved "hypersonic velocity absent a thermal signature and sonic shockwave".

Lots of things are "transmedium". Birds, for instance, can be "transmedium". Are these guys sure they will settle for any one of the 5 listed criteria. Does that make all birds that fish "unidentified anomalous phenomena"? Or only the ones that aren't "temporarily non-attributed"?

I don't know how anybody could possibly go about testing whether an unidentified object exhibited "positive lift contrary to known aerodynamic principles". I also don't know how they would go about trying to identify "multispectral signature management" in an unidentified object.

I'm inclined to agree with MR that the skeptics are generally agreed that temporarily non-attributed objects will all reduce to attributed objects without remainder, provided that enough information is available. Hence the unidentified anomalous phenomena class will have to be an empty set.

I do too.

I don't understand why these legislators want to throw out "UFO", then "UAP", just to substitute the clumsy term "temporarily non-attributed object". Are we supposed to refer to these things as TNOs from now on?

Something will be lost, too. For instance, we used to have the restriction that the things at least looked like they were "flying" (hence UFO). That was retained for a while in UAP, when the "A" stood for "aerial". These TNOs seem to be a much larger class of unidentified things.