That's why the term UAP is so good. Calling the source of the observation a phenomenon rather than an object highlights the fact that there might not be anythi

That's why the term UAP is so good. Calling the source of the observation a phenomenon rather than an object highlights the fact that there might not be anything present in the air at all. That's really an important point. The very brief recent report said there was ample evidence that the recent observations have been physical phenomena but then failed to show any of that evidence. There was a vague statement about multiple sensors measuring the same phenomenon simultaneously, but it's so flimsy and unsubstantiated that I can only assume it was a lie to keep the project funded. They aimed for the bare minimum and it's not clear that they even hit it.