>>16560242
UFO's? Yes.
UAP's? No.

>>16560265
They are the same thing. A UAP that hasn't been debunked can still be called a UFO too

>>16560276
>B-but they're the SAME!
UFO: Unidentified Flying Object
UAP: Unexplained Aerial Phenomena
Think long and hard about what those big words mean and the many differences between them before posting again.

>>16560294
Can you give any prominent recent examples of UAP that were explained away as being non-physical phenomena, like tricks of light?
UAP almost always being considered physical objects makes them the same as UFOs, for most or all intents and purposes.

>>16560315
No, because UAP's have yet to be debunked. You are confusing them with UFO's which are completely debunked.

>>16560318
>>16560315
>>16560294
>>16560276
>>16560265
These terms are used interchangeably regardless of what it says in the dictionary. No one cares.

>>16560318
If the distinction is that
>I assert that one of them is debunked and the other isn't
Then the words in the acronyms don't matter

>>16560320
Why do you even bring up dictionaries if you refuse to use them?

>>16560321
>The fact the they are completely different makes them exactly the same.
Are you OK, Anon?

>>16560323
Do you know how to read?

>>16560325
see >>16560315 for why they are not exactly the same, but the same for most intents and purposes in the vast majority of cases

>>16560330
>they are . . . the same for most intents and purposes in the vast majority of cases
No. UFO's have been completely debunked and the term was official retired.
When UAP's, which remain undebunked to this day, began to appear we creared a new term specifically for them.

>>16560345
If an undebunked UAP appears to be a physical object, then I can also call it a UFO. It is also an unidentified flying object.
See how easy that is?

You can't even debunk whether to call them UAP's or UFO's

>>16560353
You would be incorrect in calling it a UFO. UAP is the proper term.
See how easy that is.

>>16560358
What part of it is incorrect?
It's unidentified, it's flying, it's an object. It all still applies.
Seems like the only issue is your false assertion that "UFOs have been debunked"

>>16560366
Yes, UFO's have been debunked. That's why the term was official retired from use.
The correct term is UAP.

>>16560369
>official retired
lmao you've done that twice now. OFFICALLY is the word you're looking for. You shouldn't try to dictate what terms others use, ESL.

>>16560375
>The term UFO has been OFFICIALLY retired.
I accept your apology.

>>16560381
Guess Wikipedia editors never got the memo that it was "officially retired" since they consider UFO and UAP to be the same thing and they use UFO throughout most of the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object

>>16560242
>Do you think the UFO phenomena has been sufficiently debunked?
Let's be real here, does the average person even have access to enough information to be able to soberly make that judgement?

what's for sure is that the US government seems to take it very seriously and there's probably big money flow going into places like Area 51 (even if it's just a diversion or boring ol aero R&D).
That in itself is very interesting, regardless of whatever answer is closest to reality.

people don't want to appear like idiots by saying "I don't know"

>>16560387
>wikipedia
>by morons, for morons
>add your opinions today!
>and send us money
One born every minute.

>>16560398
What authority do you think has "officially retired" the term UFO? Where did that false impression of yours come from?

>>16560410
The US Air Force retired the use of the term UFO after 1952.

>>16560416
The Air Force retiring it for themselves doesn't retire it for everyone else on earth

>>16560419
>I miss Pluto. Whaaaa!
JHFC

>>16560473
At least the IAU that downgraded Pluto to dwarf planet status is an international organization, not just part of the military of one country