NO Aliens said the new Director of AARO Jon T. Koslovsky

In an article published by the prestigious "Science News", the journalist Bret Tingley wrote on November 19, 2024 a significative meeting at the Capitol. 

Here we present the text of the most important parts of it.

Pentagon UFO chief tells Senate 'very anomalous objects' need careful study 

Science News
By Brett Tingley
published November 19, 2024 

 

It's never aliens.

At least, it hasn't been yet. The United States Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities heard testimony on Tuesday (Nov. 19) from Jon T. Kosloski, director of the Pentagon's All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO). The U.S. Department of Defense created the office in July 2022 in order to have a single place for military and government personnel to report UFO sightings, or UAP, as they're now known. The new term, short for unidentified anomalous phenomena, encompasses not only unidentified objects or events in the sky, but also those in water, in space or those that appear to travel between these domains.

During today's hearing, Kosloski came in strong, stating that "it is important to underscore that, to date, AARO has not discovered any verifiable evidence of extraterrestrial beings, activity or technology." 

Still, despite having resolved hundreds of cases with prosaic explanations, Kosloski noted that his office does not believe that every UAP is a bird, balloon or drone. "We do have some very anomalous objects," he said.

Kosloski also reported on the office's latest analysis of UFO/UAP cases, stressing that his office will "continue to follow the science and data wherever they lead" and keep both Congress and the public as informed as possible  —  at the unclassified level, he clarified.

That stands in stark contrast to testimony presented to a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee last week, in which a retired U.S. Navy rear admiral and a former U.S. counterintelligence officer told lawmakers that the American government is part of a decades-long coverup to conceal the fact that "we are not alone in the cosmos."

During his testimony, Kosloski gave an overview of his office's activities since it issued a report to Congress and testified in a similar setting last year. "Many reports resolve to commonplace objects like birds, balloons and unmanned systems, while others lack sufficient data for comprehensive analysis," Kosloski said, adding that "only a small percentage of reports received by AARO are potentially anomalous."

Kosloski referred to a UAP incident that occurred in 2013 near Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. The infrared video, shot in 2013 by a U.S. Customs and Border Patrol helicopter, appears to show an object flying just above the ocean before disappearing into it, or perhaps splitting in two.
"We assessed that it was actually flying over the airport the entire time," Kosloski said. When the object appears to disappear in the infrared video that accompanies the case, it is actually the camera sensing that the object is the same temperature as the water behind it. Instead of splitting in two, it was simply two objects  —  balloons or sky lanterns  —  in close proximity that came in and out of view. [[It has to be noted that Retired Commodore Rubén Lianza, Director of the Aero-Space Identification Center belonging to the Argentinean Air Force, solved correctly the case while American private sources continued evaluating the case as a genuine UFO]]

Kosloski also offered how his office was able to close the case on the infamous GOFAST video, shot by a U.S. Navy fighter jet in 2016 off the coast of Florida. In that case, the object's apparent speed in the video was actually due to the parallax effect, or the camera's perspective, Kosloski explained.

Furthermore, the AARO director showed a 2018 video captured by a drone flying over Mt. Etna that he stated is not widely known among the public. "This was a rather difficult case to solve," Kosloski said. "The object was actually 170 meters away from the plume — not flying through it."

During questioning, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) asked Kosloski about whether or not some individuals who have encountered UAP might be reluctant to engage with his office, referring to accusations some UAP disclosure advocates frequently level against AARO. These critics attest that the office is part of an alleged decades-long U.S. government-led campaign of "excessive secrecy" that aims to keep the public in the dark about UFOs. 

In response to Gillibrand's questioning, Kosloski defended his office. "Congress has gone out of its way to create the organization AARO specifically to conduct these sorts of investigations, and has uniquely empowered them to have access to all UAP related information, whether that's historic or current, and we take that responsibility and those authorities very seriously," he said.

Gillibrand also asked about a report released by AARO in March 2024, noting that she has been told "it doesn't show any any evidence of secret programs that have aliens."

But Gillibrand pushed back on that assertion. "That's not how I read the report," the senator said. "What I read in the report is the US government took sightings extremely seriously over the last 75 years, and put some of the greatest minds together to analyze these cases, because they assessed them as some deeply unknown phenomena that may or may not cause threats — that may or may not be related to adversaries"................. 

Today's hearing concluded with a discussion of recent incidents in which unidentified drones, or uncrewed aerial systems (UAS), were seen over U.S. military bases and other sensitive installations. 

Those incidents, Kosloski notes, underscore the need for the United States to have "more persistent monitoring and understand that, whether it is a UAP or a counter-UAS issue, that we need to have that complete domain awareness around our national security facilities."

RECHAZAR LA DESIGNACIÓN DE "ANÓMALOS" IMPLICA DESCONOCER LA ESENCIA DE LOS FENÓMENOS

 

 

Mi buen amigo Juan-Vicente Ballester Olmos, en Valencia, España, gusta de abordar algunos temas de manera muy formal o académica. 

Al parecer, a él le causa molestia que existan Fenómenos Anómalos, y entonces encara el tema en 16 páginas, con notas al pie.

Yo escribo con sencillez, voy directo a un tema, y no pierdo el tiempo en darle a mis ideas y razones un formato académico, porque lo que cuenta es la sustancia.

Así las cosas, a Vicente-Juan desliza algunos conceptos que no puedo obviar considerar, pues sobre este tema resulta evidente que no se ha adentrado.

Declara por ejemplo que "lo anómalo no existe", borrando de un plumazo y sin más, toda consideración adecuada de las razones que llevaron al uso de tal adjetivo.

Ocurre que VJBO parte de una experiencia personal frustrante, y de un punto de vista que --otrora adoptado-- demostró estar esencialmente equivocado.

Dice así: "

Seguramente se trata de una petición razonable a la hora de evaluar la extraordinaria afirmación de que estamos siendo visitados por seres procedentes de galaxias lejanas. Y como realmente no disponemos de pruebas significativas, estamos hablando del sexo de los ángeles.

Pero veamos: si se trata de brindar una descripción objetiva de lo que esos Fenómenos hacen, y puede bien decirse que efectúan maniobras inverosímiles para aviones tripulados como inclusive para aparatos aéreos sin tripulación, incluidos "drones", que de estar detenidos parten a velocidades superiores a las 2 mil millas, y que estando registrados visualmente, por radar y video de pronto desaparecen, ¿acaso todo ello no es anómalo, que según la Real Academia Española significa "anormal"?

Obviamente que sí.

Por supuesto que si se parte de una lógica cartesiana, ese desempeño parece absurdo y por ende, inadmisible. Pero esas son justamente las características que definen a estos fenómenos actuales.

Para entender por qué son actuales, equivale a decir que hay que entender la coyuntura internacional por las cual estos fenómenos aparecen.

Esto a su vez explica por qué 50 años después que se cerrara toda investigación oficial, la misma volviera a abrirse, pero esta vez llevando la iniciativa la Marina de Guerra de Estados Unidos.

Si esto no se comprende, tampoco se entiende por qué surgen estos nuevos fenómenos.

Su carácter de anómalos les es intrínseco, y constituye parte fundamental de su verdadero valor y utilidad.

La existencia --como antes con el BlueBook-- de un ente investigador y de estudio como lo es la AARO dentro del Departamento de Defensa, es inherente a la existencia de estos Fenómenos.

Para comprender mejor todo cuanto digo previamente, aconsejo desde ya la lectura de mi próximo libro: UAPs: A New Secret Agenda? - A Mind-Opener To The Reality, (FANIs: ¿Una Nueva Agenda Secreta?- Un Abridor de la Mente a la Realidad)

Me permito entonces exhortar cordialmente a mi amigo VJBO y otros, a que comenten el tema con más prudencia.  

Milton W. Hourcade

 

 

 

INFORME DE AARO SOBRE LOS SATÉLITES STARLINK

A finales del año pasado, AARO elaboró este relevante Documento Informativo aclarando las numerosas situaciones en todo el Mundo en las que personas vieron satélites STARLINK y los reportaron como FANIs.(Fenómenos Anómalos No Identificados)

Debido a la extensión de la Información decidimos compartir la primera parte sustancial e invitarlos a continuar leyendo el resto del documento. 

Para ello le invitamos a buscar en Internet AARO.mil
===============================================================

Oficina de Resolución de Anomalías en Todos los Dominios (AARO)

Un documento informativo de AARO

Correlaciones del destello de los satélites Starlink1 con las observaciones de UAP

Diciembre de 2024

Introducción

Con la llegada de las megaconstelaciones de satélites de comunicaciones, como SpaceX Starlink, Eutelsat OneWeb, Amazon Kuiper y la constelación china G60, actualmente hay miles de satélites artificiales en órbita terrestre baja (LEO --Low Earth Orbit)2 y decenas de miles más cuyo lanzamiento está previsto para la próxima década [1]. El brillo de los satélites es un fenómeno óptico que se produce cuando la luz solar se refleja en las superficies de un satélite, como las antenas o los paneles solares. En este artículo se analiza la reflexión especular y difusa de la luz solar procedente de satélites artificiales y cómo estos efectos pueden ser malinterpretados como fenómenos anómalos no identificados (FANI). 

También proporciona un método para los observadores para determinar si las observaciones pueden ser atribuibles a los reflejos de los satélites.

Antecedentes

El uso de la luz solar reflejada por satélites artificiales para observar y seguir su movimiento se remonta a los primeros días de la exploración espacial [2]. Como ya se ha señalado, varias empresas desarrollan y lanzan megaconstelaciones que proporcionan acceso a Internet a la mayor parte del globo. En la actualidad, hay cerca de 10.000 satélites artificiales en órbita baja y se espera que este número se multiplique varias veces en la próxima década [1]. La figura 1 ilustra la ubicación de los satélites Starlink en órbita a partir del 2 de diciembre de 2024, a las 11:00 de la mañana hora del Este. A finales de noviembre de 2024, había más de 6.700 satélites Starlink en órbita.

La figura 2 ilustra los conceptos de reflexión difusa y especular, que describen cómo la luz rebota en los objetos. La figura 3 muestra cómo la luz solar reflejada de estas dos formas se dirige hacia un observador en la superficie de la Tierra. Como se ve en la parte izquierda de la Figura 2, la reflexión difusa se produce cuando la luz se refleja en una superficie rugosa o irregular. La luz que incide sobre una superficie rugosa se refleja en muchas direcciones, lo que propaga la luz en una amplia gama de ángulos desde la superficie reflectante,
como ilustra el «cono de luz» de color gris de la figura 3(a). Desde un único punto de observación, este cono de luz puede ser visible durante varios minutos a medida que el satélite se desplaza en su órbita por el cielo. Además, la intensidad de la luz reflejada disminuye significativamente cuanto más lejos se encuentre el observador de la superficie reflectante. En la superficie de la Tierra, la intensidad de la luz reflejada difusamente por un satélite en LEO normalmente habrá disminuido hasta el punto de que el brillo es 1 Cualquier referencia a una entidad no federal es sólo con fines informativos y no constituye un respaldo expreso o implícito de ningún servicio comercial, de AARO, el Departamento de Defensa o el Poder Ejecutivo. Este informe se centra en los satélites Starlink, pero sus principios son aplicables a cualquier constelación de satélites análoga. 2 La altitud de la órbita terrestre baja (LEO) oscila entre 300 km y 2.000 km. 

Oficina de Resolución de Anomalías en Todos los Dominios (AARO) 2 

Comparables a la luz de las estrellas. 

Debido a su construcción y orientación, muchos satélites artificiales en LEO reflejan difusamente la luz solar y pueden aparecer como estrellas que se mueven por el cielo nocturno.

Figura 1: Gráfico de los satélites Starlink en órbita. Referencia: https://www.heavens-above.com/StarLink.aspx

La reflexión especular, también conocida como centelleo, se produce en una superficie muy lisa, similar a un espejo, como se ilustra en la parte derecha de la figura 2.

Figura 2: Imagen que ilustra la diferencia entre la reflexión difusa (izquierda) y la reflexión especular (derecha)

A diferencia de la luz reflejada de forma difusa, la luz especular no se refleja en la superficie. A diferencia de la luz reflejada difusamente, la luz que incide sobre una superficie lisa refleja la luz en el mismo ángulo, o casi el mismo, que la luz incidente. Por lo tanto, el cono de luz reflejada de un satélite en LEO es mucho más estrecho para la reflexión especular en comparación con la reflexión difusa, como se ilustra en la Figura 3(b).

Esto aumenta drásticamente su brillo observado en varios órdenes de magnitud, pero disminuye en gran medida su tiempo de observación a medida que el cono pasa por encima del observador.

Estos destellos de luz muy brillantes y de corta duración se denominan «llamaradas de satélite» o «destellos de satélite».  

El diseño, lanzamiento y funcionamiento de las megaconstelaciones Starlink de SpaceX ha provocado un aumento significativo de los avistamientos de destellos de satélites, apodados «destellos Starlink», observados tanto por científicos como por no científicos.
 
Traducción realizada con la versión gratuita del traductor DeepL.com y corregida por Milton W. Hourcade

AARO REPORT ON STARLINK SATELLITES

Toward the end of the last year, AARO produced this relevant Information Paper clarifying the many situations around the World where people saw STARLINK satellites and reported them as UAPs.

Due to the extension of the Information we decided to share the first substantial part and invite you to continue reading the rest of the document. 

To that purpose we invite you to search on the Internet for AARO.mil

===============================================================

All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO)

An AARO Information Paper

Correlations of Starlink1 Satellite Flaring with UAP
Observations 

December 2024

Introduction

With the advent of satellite communication mega-constellations including the SpaceX Starlink,Eutelsat OneWeb, Amazon Kuiper, and Chinese G60 constellations, there are currently thousandsof artificial satellites in Low Earth Orbit (LEO)2 and tens of thousands more planned for launch over the next decade [1]. Satellite flaring is an optical phenomenon which occurs when sunlight reflects off a satellite's surfaces, such as antennas or solar panels. This paper discusses specular
and diffuse reflection of sunlight from man-made satellites and how these effects can be misinterpreted as unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP). It also provides a method for
observers to determine whether observations may be attributable to satellite flaring.

Background

Using reflected sunlight from man-made satellites to observe and track their movement goes back to the earliest days of space exploration [2]. As noted above, several companies develop and launch mega-constellations, providing internet access to most of the globe. Currently, there are nearly
10,000 artificial satellites in LEO and this number is expected to grow several-fold over the nextdecade [1]. Figure 1 illustrates the location of Starlink satellites in orbit as of December 2, 2024, at 11:00 AM Eastern Standard Time. As of the end of November 2024, there were over 6,700 Starlink satellites in orbit.
Figure 2 illustrates the concepts of diffuse and specular reflections, which describe how light bounces off objects. Figure 3 shows how sunlight reflected in these two ways is directed toward an observer on the surface of the Earth. As seen in the left side of Figure 2, diffuse reflection occurs when light reflects from a rough or irregular surface. Light impinging upon a rough surface reflects in many directions, which spreads the light over a large range of angles from the reflecting surface,
as illustrated by the gray colored "light cone” in the Figure 3(a). From a single observation point, this cone of light can be visible for up to several minutes as the satellite moves in its orbit across the sky. Additionally, the intensity of reflected light significantly decreases the further away the observer is from the reflecting surface. At the Earth’s surface, the intensity of diffusely reflected light from a satellite in LEO will typically have diminished to the point that the brightness is1 Any reference to a non-federal entity is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an express or implied endorsement of any commercial service, from AARO, the Department of Defense, or the Executive Branch. This report focuses on Starlink satellites, but its principles are applicable for any analogous satellite constellation. 2 Altitude for Low Earth Orbit (LEO) ranges from 300km to 2,000km. All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) 2 comparable to starlight. Due to their construction and orientation, many man-made satellites in LEO diffusely reflect sunlight and can appear as stars that move across the night sky.

 

Figure 1: Graphic of Starlink satellites in orbit. Ref: https://www.heavens-above.com/StarLink.aspx

Specular reflection, also known as glint, occurs from a very smooth, mirror-like surface as illustrated on the right side of Figure 2. Unlike diffusely reflected light, the light striking a smooth surface reflects light at the same, or nearly the same, angle as the incident light. Therefore, the reflected light cone from a satellite in LEO is much narrower for specular reflection as compared to diffuse reflection, as illustrated in Figure 3(b). 

This dramatically increases its observed brightness by several orders of magnitude, but greatly decreases its observation time as the cone passes over the observer.

Figure 2: Image illustrating the difference between diffuse reflection (left) and specular reflection (right).

All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO)3
These very bright, short lived flashes of light are called “satellite flares” or “satellite glint.” 

Figure 3: Illustration of (a) diffuse reflection of sunlight from a satellite and (b) specular reflection of sunlight from a satellite as viewed by an observer on the surface of the Earth. 

The design, launch, and operation of SpaceX Starlink mega-constellations has led to a significant increase in the sighting of satellite flares, dubbed “Starlink flares,” noted by scientists and non-scientists alike.

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BOOK IS COMING

 

The book is coming. I'm talking about my book. 

The one that took me nine months to write, the one that was my main project to develop throughout 2024, the one that would be my way to say what I consider indispensable and to help people think right and appropriately about what is usually introduced as a mystery, something fantastic, something otherwordly.

The reality is quite different, but it is not easy to say; it is indeed complicated and not excent with some risks, but the truth deserves to be served. 

My modest work should be considered as a sincere effort to help people use their minds to be analytical, to link orderly different sources of information, and to come --if it is possible and I think it is-- to a valid conclusion.

The liars, those called to pose publicly as experts but, in reality, obeying superior orders and serving specific plans, will continue playing their roles. 

For their part, the imaginative people who are full of doubts try to have some certainties appealing to videos, pictures, and a bunch of erroneous publications but are victims of a vast plan conceived to hide the truth.

That is why the book title is: "UAPs: A New Secret Agenda?" and the sub-title is: "A Mind-Opener to the Reality". 

My only intention and desire is to make people think and to give them a lot of reliable information (from official and non-official sources) to help them shape their thoughts about the challenging subject of UAPs.

Providing substantial information from responsible sources and exerting the noble task of teaching and guiding is a pleasure, a duty, and an honor.

You, the readers, deserve no less than that, and I consider myself at your service. 

In other words, writing this book has been an act of love.

I hope you take advantage of it. It will be on paperback and 

Kindle.

Milton W. Hourcade 

SE VIENE EL LIBRO

 

El libro está viniendo. Me refiero a mi libro.

El que me llevó nueve meses escribirlo,el que fue mi principal proyecto a desarrollar en 2024, el que sería mi forma de decir lo que considero indispensable y ayudar a la gente a pensar recta y apropiadamente acerca de lo que usualmente es presentado como un misterio, algo fantástico, algo de otro mundo.

La realidad es bien diferente, pero no es fácil de decir; es indudablemente complicada y no exenta de algunos riesgos, pero la verdad merece ser servida.

Mi modesto trabajo debería ser considerado como un sincero esfuerzo por ayudar a las personas a que usen sus mentes para que sean analíticas, para que vinculen ordenadamente diferentes fuentes de información y para que lleguen –si es posible y pienso que lo es—a una conclusión válida.

Los mentirosos, aquellos llamados a posar públicamente como expertos, pero en realidad obedeciendo a órdenes superiores y sirviendo a planes específicos, continuarán desempeñando sus papeles.

Por su parte, las personas imaginativas que están llenas de dudas, tratan de tener algunas certezas apelando a videos, fotos y a un montón de publicaciones erróneas pero son víctimas de un vasto plan para ocultar la verdad.

Es por eso que el título del libro es: “FANIs:¿Una Nueva Agenda Secreta?” y el sub-título es: “Un Abridor de la Mente a la Realidad”

Mi única intención y deseo es hacer pensar a las personas y darles una cantidad de información confiable (de fuentes oficiales y no-oficiales) para ayudarles a formar sus pensamientos sobre el desafiante tema de los FANIs.

Proveer de sustancial información de fuentes confiables y ejercer la noble tarea de educar y guiar, es un placer, un deber y un honor.

Ustedes lectores merecen no menos que eso, y me considero a vuestro servicio.

En otras palabras, escribir este libro ha sido un acto de amor.

Espero lo aprovechen, estará impreso en rústica y en Kindle.

Me permito recordarles que el libro está escrito en inglés. 

Milton W. Hourcade

 

HOW TO CONCEPTUALIZE WHAT DOES NOT EXIST?

That is the great underlying dilemma of those who deal with the subject once labeled as Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) and now as Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAPs).

If you go to my column on Facebook, you will see that I reproduced a good interview that I was given on Channel 4 by the journalistic team of the program “8 A.M.” broadcasted in February 2024.

There I briefly described several natural, optical and atmospheric phenomena that could give rise to reports of UAPs. And one of the interviewers, I think her name is Beatriz, asked me at one point: “And the others?

I should have answered: “the others” are more of the same. And of course, in my lecture “About things you can see in the sky”, and the one I gave in 2024, “Looking at the sky is a challenge”, I reviewed so many other objects, natural phenomena and products of human ingenuity, which can provoke the original reports of something that is unknown to the witnesses. So we may well say that we have objects and phenomena “unknown to witnesses”.

And because they are unknown to them, they cannot by themselves, and at the moment, identify them.

But the “unidentified” is not an inherent characteristic of the sighted, but it is a result of the process that the witnesses do in their minds. As has been well noted by handling the adjective in English, “unidentified” is a verb conjugated in the past tense. The more correct translation would be: “it was not identified”.

The new UAP designation raises something positive, and something that is not positive but has - in my opinion - its raison d'être and its explanation.

The positive thing is to refer not to “objects” but to “phenomena”, because it covers a broader category. A ball lightning is an interesting atmospheric phenomenon, that shines, that has a volume, that remains still or moves, that disappears when it discharges, but it is not a material object. It is a manifestation of energy. So using the term “phenomena” is more comprehensive than “objects” and responds to a reality.

A reality that even could be linked to artificially provoked phenomena that are related to electronics.

And here comes the second word used in the acronym UAP, and I am referring to “anomalous”, which means abnormal.

I know that some conscientious scholars of phenomena denounced as strange do not like this adjective. But if instead of “anomalous” they would speak of “extraordinary”, “incredible”, “extraterrestrial”, “magical”, “impossible”, they would like it much less.

That is why it was an intelligent initiative to qualify these phenomena as “anomalous”, because they develop speeds that exceed those so far achieved by aerial apparatus, because they make sudden displacements at closed angles, because they are being seen, captured by radar and video and suddenly disappear. What was that, what was there?

The materialization of the phenomenon is not only in the mind of the observer but also in the capture by other means. But the apparent materialization disappears as soon as the waves by which something is artificially created in the atmosphere, in space or in the sea are no longer emitted.

Therefore the word phenomenon fits perfectly to a different reality to which one has not been accustomed before, because the time of the BlueBook dealt with objects and various phenomena, but not with the characteristics that today's technology allows.

These current phenomena pose a much greater challenge for the researcher, because if he/she is not informed about them, he/she will tend to think that he/she is really in front of something pergined by a non-human mind, when that would unintentionally distort reality.

Since unidentified refers not to a category intrinsic to what is sighted, but to a lucubration of the observer and perhaps of those who study his case, the “U” of unidentified in the original designation in English, and the “N.I.” of unidentified in Spanish, are superfluous.

Perhaps the best adjective that fits in Spanish (which has also been used in French) is insólito. According to the Royal Spanish Academy (RAE), insólito means unusual, strange or unaccustomed.

The best adjective in English is unusual , rather than unheard or unbelievable, which are other possible translations, because they do not fit the subject in question. So in English the letter U is kept.

In our case, our acronym UAPSG refers to Unusual, and in Spanish the I of GEFAI refers to Inusuales. What would have to disappear is the A with the meaning of aerial (in English), aéreos (in Spanish) to use the adjective anómalos.

But in doing this semantic analysis, I find what for me is a conceptual redundancy. If we say that something is anomalous, we do not need to say that it is unusual. It goes without saying that it is.

And this same consideration is valid for the English language. So in both cases we can only refer to anomalous phenomena.

In English, using the adjective Unidentified brings to mind the same adjective used in the acronym U.F.O., hence the general public tends to think that the new acronym refers to the same thing. But the reality is quite different.

There is a reason why the office created by the U.S. Department of Defense is called A.A.R.O., for All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, which we consider more correct to say in Spanish as “en todos los ámbitos” (in all the environments) since we usually refer to the space, air or maritime domains in such a way.

I consider that this is appropriate and if we did that, our acronym would stand for Anomalous Phenomena Study Group (A.P.S.G.) and Grupo de Estudio de Fenómenos Anómalos(G.E.F.A.).

But to further adjust these anomalous phenomena to the current reality, it would be necessary to add the concept of “in all fields”, or to put it more condensed, in multiple fields.

In other words, the acronym in English would end up being All-environment Anomalous Phenomena Study Group (A.A.P.S.G.) and in Spanish, Grupo de Estudio de Fenómenos Anómalos en Todos los Ámbitos (G.E.F.A.T.A.).

Notwithstanding these considerations, as U.A.P.S.G. and G.E.F.A.I. are widely known and accredited acronyms, we will continue to use them as such but being aware that they do not fit the current reality.

Milton W. Hourcade