When Radar Sees a UFO That Isnt There

Introduction

Radar can make a UFO report seem unusually persuasive because it appears to replace fallible human observation with measured data. A witness may misjudge distance, speed or scale, but radar seems to offer harder facts: range, bearing, motion and sometimes altitude. The problem is that radar is not a direct window onto the sky. It is a sensing system that transmits radio energy, receives echoes, filters clutter, applies thresholds and turns uncertain signals into plots or tracks. At each stage, ordinary effects can create false or ambiguous returns. Ground reflections, weather, birds, insects, wind turbines, equipment limitations, signal processing choices and unusual atmospheric propagation can all make a radar display show something that is not a discrete craft. The FAA explicitly notes that anomalous propagation or ducting can place “many extraneous blips” on a radar display, while NASA’s 2023 UAP study warned that UAP work is hampered by sensor calibration problems and missing sensor metadata. [Federal Aviation Administration]faa.govFederal Aviation AdministrationSection 5. Surveillance SystemsThe bending of radar pulses, often called anomalous propagation or ducting…

This matters for identified flying objects because radar evidence is often treated as a shortcut to certainty. It should not be. A radar return may record a real aircraft, balloon, bird flock or drone; it may show weather or biological scatter; it may be a false target caused by terrain, noise, clutter or refraction; or it may remain unresolved because the data are incomplete. A radar-associated UFO case is strongest only when the return is coherent, independently confirmed, time-synchronised with other sensors, compatible with known radar performance, and checked against weather, aviation and environmental records.

Why a radar “target” is not automatically an object

A radar system works by sending out radio pulses and measuring returned energy. In basic air-traffic use, the direction of a target is inferred from the antenna position when the echo returns, while range is calculated from the time taken for the pulse to travel out and back. That principle is powerful, but it also exposes the key weakness: the receiver measures returned energy, not identity. Unless the system is using cooperative surveillance such as a transponder or ADS-B, it does not inherently know whether the echo came from an aircraft, a flock of birds, a hill, a turbine blade, a patch of rain or a beam bent down towards the ground. [Federal Aviation Administration]faa.govFederal Aviation AdministrationSection 5. Surveillance SystemsThe bending of radar pulses, often called anomalous propagation or ducting…

Primary surveillance radar is especially relevant to UFO reports because it can detect non-cooperative objects, but it also has well-known limitations. ICAO guidance on surveillance technologies notes that primary surveillance radar does not provide identity, does not provide altitude in its basic form, and can often report false targets such as ground vehicles, weather and birds; it also performs poorly in ground and weather clutter. [ICAO]icao.intICAOGuidance Material on Comparison of Surveillance…o Can often report false targets (ground vehicles, weather, birds etc) o Poor dete… EUROCONTROL surveillance standards similarly recognise that false primary-surveillance-radar target reports may be generated by weather, terrain, noise, clutter and other reflecting objects, and that performance is partly measured by the number of false target reports per antenna scan. [EUROCONTROL]eurocontrol.intEUROCONTROLRADAR SURVEILLANCE IN EN-ROUTE AIRSPACE AND…False PSR target reports may also be generated by weather, terrain, noise, clut…

That technical background changes how radar UFO claims should be read. A phrase such as “tracked on radar” may describe several very different situations: a single uncorrelated blip, a short sequence of plots, a processed track built by software, a primary return without altitude, a secondary return from a transponder-equipped aircraft, or a multi-sensor correlation. These are not equal forms of evidence. A single plot can be caused by noise or clutter. A short track can be created when processing software links unrelated returns. A real aircraft track can be displaced or confused by nearby interference. Radar evidence therefore needs context before it can support a claim of unusual performance.

Radar clutter and noise

Radar clutter is unwanted returned energy from things the system is not meant to track. In aviation and meteorology, clutter may come from land, sea, hills, buildings, vehicles, precipitation, birds, insects, wind turbines and other reflective surfaces. The FAA’s aeronautical material describes clutter as returns from targets or phenomena that may limit or prevent effective radar use. [Federal Aviation Administration]faa.govFederal Aviation AdministrationSection 5. Surveillance SystemsThe bending of radar pulses, often called anomalous propagation or ducting… The Met Office’s weather radar factsheet gives a practical meteorological example: permanent echoes can be caused by hills or surface obstacles reflecting the beam, and modern systems use processing to identify and remove many such returns. [Weather.gov]weather.govNWS Weather RadarAnomalous Propagation (AP) refers to meteorological situations where a signal comes back to the radar antenna even in th…

Noise is different but related. A radar receiver must decide whether a weak return is meaningful or merely a fluctuation in the background. Detection thresholds are designed to reduce false alarms while still allowing real targets through. If the threshold is too permissive, clutter spikes and noise may become displayed targets. If it is too strict, weak real targets may be missed. This is why radar engineers use moving-target indication, Doppler processing, adaptive thresholds and clutter maps. MIT Lincoln Laboratory’s work on primary radar describes the challenge plainly: primary radars can have difficulty detecting aircraft when ground clutter, rain or birds interfere, and modern airport surveillance radar was developed with adaptive digital processing to overcome such interference. [mit]archive.ll.mit.eduLincoln Laboratory Advances in Primary-Radar Technology /'.Lincoln Laboratory Advances in Primary-Radar Technology /'.

For UFO analysis, clutter and noise are not abstract engineering details. They affect the story that later gets told. A radar return that appears suddenly, disappears after a few scans or jumps between positions may be described as an object accelerating, vanishing or manoeuvring. Yet some apparent motion can arise because the radar intermittently detects clutter or because software associates one return with another. The result may be a real screen event without a real vehicle corresponding to it.

Wind farms show how known infrastructure can create aviation-relevant false returns. UK aviation assessments for wind-energy projects repeatedly discuss turbine interference with primary surveillance radar: rotating blades can create clutter, false targets, track seduction and masking of genuine aircraft returns. One assessment explains that false radar returns may lead a processor to initiate false aircraft tracks, while another notes that some primary radars cannot reliably distinguish moving turbine blades from aircraft. [EUROCONTROL]eurocontrol.intsurveilllance report wide area multilateration 200508surveilllance report wide area multilateration 200508 This does not mean wind turbines explain all radar UFO reports. It shows something more general and more important: radar systems can make ordinary reflecting structures appear as operationally significant targets.

Weather and propagation

Weather affects radar in two main ways. First, precipitation, ice, birds and insects can produce real returns that are not aircraft. Second, the atmosphere can bend radar beams in ways that make the displayed return misleading. The second problem is called anomalous propagation, often shortened to AP. NOAA defines AP as false, non-precipitation echoes produced by non-standard propagation of the radar beam under certain atmospheric conditions. [National Weather Service]forecast.weather.govNational Weather Service NOAA's National Weather ServiceNational Weather Service NOAA's National Weather Service

The mechanism is usually refraction. Under normal conditions, a radar beam bends only slightly as it travels through the atmosphere. When temperature and moisture change sharply with height, especially during inversions or stable layers, the beam can bend more strongly. NOAA explains that anomalous propagation can occur when atmospheric conditions cause the radar beam to bend abnormally, producing false echoes that are not precipitation; these returns are unpredictable and can contaminate radar-based precipitation estimates. [NOAA]noaa.govanomalous propagationanomalous propagation The National Weather Service also notes that ducting can occur when super-refraction bends the beam equal to or more than the Earth’s curvature, often producing false echoes known as AP. [Weather.gov]forecast.weather.govNational Weather Service NOAA's National Weather ServiceNational Weather Service NOAA's National Weather Service

The FAA describes the same problem from the aviation side. Its surveillance systems guidance says that anomalous propagation or ducting may cause many extraneous blips to appear on a radar operator’s display if the beam has been bent towards the ground, or may reduce detection range if the beam is bent upwards. It also notes that beacon radar and moving target indicator processing can often reduce the problem, but not because the underlying atmospheric effect is imaginary. [Federal Aviation Administration]faa.govFederal Aviation AdministrationSection 5. Surveillance SystemsThe bending of radar pulses, often called anomalous propagation or ducting…

This is one of the most important radar-related causes of UFO reports because it can mimic independent confirmation. A witness may see an unrelated light, star, aircraft, meteor or reflection while radar simultaneously displays AP clutter. Later, the two observations may be fused into a single “radar-visual” case. The story becomes stronger in appearance, even though the visual and radar events may not have involved the same physical object.

When weather radar sees things that are not weather

Weather radar provides a useful everyday analogy because its false returns are publicly visible and well studied. National Weather Service training material notes that anomalous propagation is most common on the lowest elevation slices, is transient, depends strongly on atmospheric conditions, and often disappears as surface heating mixes out an inversion. It also advises checking adjacent radars and visible satellite imagery, because AP will not appear in the same way on satellite images. [Weather.gov]weather.govOpen source on weather.gov.

This cross-checking principle applies directly to UFO analysis. If one radar sees an apparent object but neighbouring radars do not, the difference may be geometry, beam height, filtering, local clutter or propagation rather than an extraordinary vehicle. Conversely, if multiple independent radars at different locations show a consistent target at the same time and position, the evidence becomes stronger. The point is not to dismiss radar, but to ask whether the return behaves like a physical object rather than a sensor-local artefact.

Scientific work on weather radar treats AP as a serious quality-control problem, not as a fringe excuse. Studies in meteorological radar have long described contamination from anomalous beam propagation and permanent clutter caused by buildings and topography near the radar. [NOAA]noaa.govradar beamsradar beams If weather services must correct for such effects while estimating rainfall, UFO investigators should be even more cautious when using isolated radar returns to infer unknown craft.

Radar-visual cases need stricter tests, not looser ones

Radar-visual reports are often treated as the gold standard of UFO evidence because they appear to combine human observation with instruments. They can be stronger than a witness-only case, but only if the correlation is precise. It is not enough for a person to see something somewhere in the sky while radar shows something somewhere on a screen. The timing, bearing, elevation, range, motion and duration must match within the known limits of both the witness and the instrument.

The historical literature shows why this matters. The University of Colorado’s Condon Report, a major scientific review of UFO evidence, examined radar and optical cases and included examples where a visual misidentification and an apparently unrelated radar return could combine into a misleading UFO report. [JSTOR]jstor.orgUFO Study: Condon Group Finds No Evidence of VisitsUFO Study: Condon Group Finds No Evidence of Visits That pattern remains important: two weak or ambiguous data points can look mutually reinforcing if investigators assume they describe the same object.

A credible radar-visual case therefore needs several questions answered. Did the witness see the object in the same direction indicated by radar? Did the radar have range but no altitude, or was altitude independently measured? Was the return primary only, or was there a secondary transponder return? Did the track persist across multiple sweeps? Was it seen by more than one radar with different geometry? Were weather conditions favourable for ducting or anomalous propagation? Were known aircraft, balloons, drones, birds or military exercises in the area? Without those answers, “radar-visual” is a label, not a conclusion.

The Washington 1952 cautionary example

The July 1952 Washington, D.C. radar incidents remain a classic example of how radar anomalies can become embedded in UFO history. Radar operators reported unidentified returns around Washington National Airport and Andrews Air Force Base during a period of intense public attention to flying saucers. Interceptor aircraft were scrambled, press interest surged, and official explanations were heavily contested. The case is still discussed because it contained both radar reports and some visual observations, making it more complex than a simple witness sighting.

The official Air Force explanation emphasised temperature inversion and radar propagation effects. Major General John Samford stated at a Pentagon press conference that many visual sightings could be explained by misidentified aerial phenomena, while unknown radar targets could be explained by temperature inversion conditions over Washington. Later civil aviation analysis also found temperature inversion indicated in almost every instance involving the unidentified radar targets or visual objects. [Federal Aviation Administration]faa.govFederal Aviation AdministrationSection 5. Surveillance SystemsThe bending of radar pulses, often called anomalous propagation or ducting…

The point is not that every detail of the Washington events is beyond dispute. Some radar operators and later researchers argued that inversion alone did not explain all reported behaviour. The useful lesson is methodological: once radar returns are described publicly as objects travelling at extraordinary speeds, later analysis must reconstruct the actual sensor conditions, meteorology, equipment, sweep-by-sweep behaviour and possible correlations. A dramatic radar narrative is not the same as a preserved technical dataset.

Modern UAP reporting still treats sensors as a data problem

Modern UAP reporting has not removed the radar-anomaly problem. It has made the data problem more visible. The 2021 U.S. intelligence community preliminary assessment stated that various sensors registering UAP generally operate correctly and capture enough real data for initial assessment, but also acknowledged that some UAP may be attributable to sensor anomalies. It separately identified sensor limitations and the challenge of filtering radar clutter as obstacles to UAP data collection. [Director of National Intelligence]dni.govDF 2021 00275 Preliminary Assessment Unidentified Aerial PhenomenaDF 2021 00275 Preliminary Assessment Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

NASA’s 2023 independent study reached a similar practical conclusion. It did not argue that all UAP reports are sensor errors; instead, it said reliable study requires systematic calibration, multiple measurements and thorough sensor metadata. NASA emphasised that many UAP reports come from instruments not designed specifically for UAP detection, which makes calibration and contextual data essential. [NASA]science.nasa.govNASA ScienceIndependent Study Team ReportThe panel notes that, at present, gathering data on UAP is hampered by sensor calibration challe…

AARO’s public material also reinforces the need to separate anomaly status from extraordinary interpretation. Its public examples include UAP reports resolved as balloons, migratory birds and non-anomalous events, alongside cases that remain unresolved or under analysis. [AARO]aaro.milOfficial UAP ImageryOfficial UAP Imagery Its explanation of commonly reported UAP causes includes airborne clutter such as windborne debris, plastic bags, mylar balloons and birds. [AARO]aaro.milOpen source on aaro.mil. These examples are not all radar cases, but they show the same investigative logic: a report can be unresolved at first because the sensor or observer lacks enough context, not because the object is exotic.

Cross-checking sensor records

The best way to handle a radar-associated UFO report is to treat it as a dataset rather than a story. The first task is to establish what kind of radar was involved. Primary radar detects reflected energy from non-cooperative targets. Secondary surveillance radar depends on replies from aircraft transponders. ADS-B depends on aircraft broadcasting position and other data. These systems answer different questions and have different failure modes. A primary return without a transponder is not automatically mysterious; it may be a non-cooperative object, clutter, a biological return, weather or a false report. [Federal Aviation Administration]faa.govFederal Aviation AdministrationSection 5. Surveillance SystemsThe bending of radar pulses, often called anomalous propagation or ducting…

The next task is to inspect track quality. A real aircraft usually produces a coherent sequence of returns compatible with plausible motion. A spurious target may appear for one or two scans, jump position, merge with clutter, split into multiple plots or vanish when filtering changes. SKYbrary’s explanation of primary surveillance radar notes one specific false-target mechanism: if a reflected signal arrives after a second pulse has been transmitted, the radar may be unable to determine which emitted pulse produced the return, creating a false target usually close to the radar. [Skybrary]skybrary.aeroOpen source on skybrary.aero.

A disciplined review should then compare the radar data with independent sources: weather radar, radiosonde or forecast soundings, aircraft tracks, ADS-B logs, military activity notices, balloon launches, satellite passes, bird migration data, local clutter maps and reports from neighbouring radars. If a return appears only on one radar under conditions favourable for ducting, the anomaly is much weaker than a return independently observed by multiple sensors from different angles. If the radar timebase is uncertain or video timestamps are not synchronised, apparent correlations can be false.

How to grade a radar UFO claim

A radar-associated UFO report should be graded by evidence quality rather than by how strange the displayed motion appears. A useful scale runs from weak to strong:

Weak: a single blip, no raw data, no weather context, no sensor settings, no independent confirmation.

Moderate: a short sequence of plots from one radar, with approximate time and location, but limited metadata.

Stronger: a coherent track from one calibrated system, checked against aircraft, weather and known clutter sources.

Much stronger: independent radars with different viewing geometry showing the same target at the same time and place.

Strongest: radar correlated with optical, infrared, pilot, air-traffic and environmental records, with preserved metadata and enough raw data to reconstruct the event.

This scale protects against two opposite errors. The first is overbelief: treating any radar return as proof of an extraordinary object. The second is over-dismissal: assuming every unusual radar event is meaningless. Radar anomalies are real sensor events; the question is what caused them. Sometimes the answer is mundane. Sometimes the data are too incomplete. Occasionally, an event may deserve further investigation because it survives the normal checks.

What radar anomalies teach UFO investigation

Radar anomalies are a central cause of UFO reports because they sit at the boundary between perception and instrumentation. They can solve cases by identifying aircraft, weather, balloons, birds or debris. They can also create cases by turning clutter, ducting, noise or processing artefacts into target-like returns. The same technology that gives investigators powerful evidence also gives them new ways to be misled.

The most defensible conclusion is therefore careful rather than dismissive. Radar evidence matters, but it is not self-interpreting. A return on a screen must be tested against the radar’s operating mode, local clutter, weather, atmospheric propagation, track continuity, independent sensors and possible ordinary targets. When those checks are missing, a radar UFO may be a real display event without a corresponding extraordinary object. When those checks are present and survive scrutiny, the case becomes stronger precisely because the normal sources of spurious returns have been considered and constrained.

Amazon book picks

Further Reading

Books and field guides related to When Radar Sees a UFO That Isnt There. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.

Book

The UFO Experience

By Joseph Allen Hynek

Discusses the evidential value and limitations of sensor-supported UFO reports.

See on Amazon

Book

The UFO Enigma

By Peter A. Sturrock

Addresses evaluation of anomalous observations and instrumentation.

See on Amazon

Book

Introduction to Radar Systems

By Merrill Ivan Skolnik

Explains radar returns, clutter, noise, propagation, and false targets.

See on Amazon

Book

The UFO Experience, A Scientific Inquiry

By J. Allen Hynek

First published 1972.

See on Amazon

Browse more on Amazon: The UFO Experience The UFO Enigma to Radar Systems books

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

eBay marketplace picks

Marketplace Samples

Example marketplace items related to this page. Use the search link to explore similar finds on eBay.

Shop location

Using USA USA USAUKCanadaAustraliaIreland

Example eBay listing

Alien Surfing Moon T-Shirt Funny Space UFO Cosmic Graphic Unisex Tee

Search eBay.co.uk: ufo t shirt

Browse similar on eBay.co.uk

Example eBay listing

Vintage 90s Looney Tunes UFO Alien All Over Print Double Sided T Shirt Mens L

Search eBay.co.uk: ufo t shirt

Browse similar on eBay.co.uk

Example eBay listing

ALIEN UFO AREA 51 GROOM DRY LAKE TEST FACILITY T-SHIRT

Search eBay.co.uk: ufo t shirt

Browse similar on eBay.co.uk

Example eBay listing

Retro Comic Book Style UFO's Attack T Shirt Funny Alien 50s Cinema Style Design

Search eBay.co.uk: ufo t shirt

Browse similar on eBay.co.uk

Browse more on eBay.co.uk

Example items shown for inspiration; availability and pricing can change. Branchoria may earn a commission if you purchase through outbound eBay links.

Endnotes

1. Source: faa.gov
   Link: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap4_section_5.html
   Source snippet

   Federal Aviation AdministrationSection 5. Surveillance SystemsThe bending of radar pulses, often called anomalous propagation or ducting...

2. Source: science.nasa.gov
   Link: https://science.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/uap-independent-study-team-final-report.pdf
   Source snippet

   NASA ScienceIndependent Study Team ReportThe panel notes that, at present, gathering data on UAP is hampered by sensor calibration challe...

3. Source: icao.int
   Link: https://www.icao.int/sites/default/files/APAC/Documents/edocs/CNS/gmst_technology.pdf
   Source snippet

   ICAOGuidance Material on Comparison of Surveillance...o Can often report false targets (ground vehicles, weather, birds etc) o Poor dete...

4. Source: eurocontrol.int
   Link: https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/publication/files/surveillance-standard-document-for-radar-surveillance-in-en-route-airspace-and-major-terminal-areas199703.pdf
   Source snippet

   EUROCONTROLRADAR SURVEILLANCE IN EN-ROUTE AIRSPACE AND...False PSR target reports may also be generated by weather, terrain, noise, clut...

5. Source: weather.gov
   Link: https://www.weather.gov/mlb/Doppler_Dual_Pol_Weather_Radar
   Source snippet

   NWS Weather RadarAnomalous Propagation (AP) refers to meteorological situations where a signal comes back to the radar antenna even in th...

6. Source: archive.ll.mit.edu
   Title: Lincoln Laboratory Advances in Primary-Radar Technology /’.’
   Link: https://archive.ll.mit.edu/publications/journal/pdf/vol02_no3/2.3.3.advancesprimaryradar.pdf

7. Source: forecast.weather.gov
   Title: National Weather Service NOAA’s National Weather Service
   Link: https://forecast.weather.gov/glossary.php?word=AP

8. Source: noaa.gov
   Title: anomalous propagation
   Link: https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/anomalous-propagation

9. Source: weather.gov
   Link: https://www.weather.gov/bmx/radar_aboutnwsradar_shortcomings

10. Source: jstor.org
    Title: UFO Study: Condon Group Finds No Evidence of Visits
    Link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1725090

11. Source: nasa.gov
    Title: update nasa shares uap independent study report names director
    Link: https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/update-nasa-shares-uap-independent-study-report-names-director/

12. Source: aaro.mil
    Title: Official UAP Imagery
    Link: https://www.aaro.mil/UAP-Cases/Official-UAP-Imagery/

13. Source: aaro.mil
    Link: https://www.aaro.mil/

14. Source: skybrary.aero
    Link: https://skybrary.aero/articles/primary-surveillance-radar-psr

15. Source: science.nasa.gov
    Link: https://science.nasa.gov/uap/

16. Source: eurocontrol.int
    Title: surveilllance report wide area multilateration 200508
    Link: https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/2019-05/surveilllance-report-wide-area-multilateration-200508.pdf

17. Source: eurocontrol.int
    Link: https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/2024-04/eurocontrol-eassp-specification-vol1-v1-1.pdf

18. Source: eurocontrol.int
    Link: https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/2019-05/surveillance-report-multi-static-primary-surveillance-radar-an-examination-of-altervative-frequency-bands-200807.pdf

19. Source: noaa.gov
    Title: radar beams
    Link: https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/radar-beams

20. Source: app.gov.md
    Title: 26102025 final PSR MSSR Mode S Technical Specification
    Link: https://app.gov.md/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/26102025_final_PSR_MSSR_Mode_S_Technical_Specification.pdf

21. Source: skybrary.aero
    Link: https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/files/bookshelf/5391.pdf

22. Source: marine.gov.scot
    Link: https://marine.gov.scot/sites/default/files/vo76691.pdf

23. Source: dni.gov
    Title: DF 2021 00275 Preliminary Assessment Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
    Link: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/FOIA/DF-2021-00275-Preliminary-Assessment-Unidentified-Aerial-Phenomena.pdf

24. Source: dni.gov
    Title: Prelimary Assessment UAP 20210625
    Link: https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf

25. Source: Wikipedia
    Title: Anomalous propagation
    Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous_propagation

Additional References

1. Source: cia.gov
   Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp81r00560r000100010001-0

2. Source: cia.gov
   Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp81r00560r000100010010-0

3. Source: youtube.com
   Title: Weather Radar Basics and Identifying Non-Precipitation Echoes
   Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUe3a1fQo5I
   Source snippet

   Doppler Radar Limitations and Velocity Aliasing...

4. Source: war.gov
   Link: https://www.war.gov/medialink/ufo/release_1/255_413270_ufo%27s_and_defense_what_should_we_prepare_for.pdf

5. Source: youtube.com
   Title: Understanding Anomalous Propagation and False Radar Echoes
   Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3zW6a4C31M
   Source snippet

   How Radar Works: Limitations and Common Artifacts...

6. Source: youtube.com
   Title: How Radar Works: Limitations and Common Artifacts
   Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J342Xl7t9gU
   Source snippet

   Weather Radar Basics and Identifying Non-Precipitation Echoes...

7. Source: war.gov
   Title: department of defense releases the annual report on unidentified anomalous phen
   Link: https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3964824/department-of-defense-releases-the-annual-report-on-unidentified-anomalous-phen/

8. Source: facebook.com
   Link: https://www.facebook.com/MatthewSantoroVideos/videos/10-ufo-sightings-that-were-confirmed-by-multiple-governments/2025914504989049/

9. Source: aui.edu
   Link: https://aui.edu/aaro-releases-report-on-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena-uap/

10. Source: researchgate.net
    Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353539589_Analysis_of_ODNI_Preliminary_Assessment_Unidentified_Aerial_Phenomena