13-001-AN1 (Santiago, Dominican Republic)

20130101_143829_1

Synopsis: On 02 Jan 2013, at 1438 hours, the witness of this investigation was taking photos of the sky with a Samsung Galaxy SIII cell phone. Upon reviewing the photos, the witness claims to have taken a photo of a UFO.

Evidence Submitted: Original photo.

Initial Action: Case opened as an AN1.

Investigation and Findings:  Forensic analysis of the photo indicated the object is a lens flare.

Object Details: Identified as a lens flare.

12-100-AN1 (Queensbury, NY)

12-100

Synopsis: On 03 Jan 99, at 1900 hours, the witness of this investigation saw a UFO hovering over the mountains near his home. According to the witness, the UFO was a “saucer that evaporated”.

Evidence Submitted: Video

Initial Action: Case opened as an AN1.

Investigation and Findings:  During the interview, the witness claimed to have seen the UFO hovering just above Lockhart Mountain. A fusion of weather, terrain, and astronomical data, to include witness interview, highly suggest the object observed by the witness was the planet Venus. The camcorder used by the witness would have likely forced the camera’s optics to focus in and out – giving it the illusion that the object was glowing and morphing. Additionally, the shifting of colors is likely due to atmospheric scintillation.

Object Details: Venus

12-093-AN1 (Bowie, MD)

Photo1220

Synopsis: The witness of the investigation contacted API and claimed to have several photos of strange objects.

Evidence Submitted: Over 10 photos.

Initial Action: This UFO case was opened as an AN1, an anomaly that left no lasting physical effects, such as lights in the sky and similar phenomena. Initial analysis indicates lens flares and pareidolia.

Investigation and Findings:  During the investigation, the investigators determined the objects in the photos were a combination of light artifacts and lens flares – combined with pareidolia. in an effort to determine if the objects were due to the camera, an experiment using the witness’s camera was planned. The witness, however, contacted API and claimed the photos were a national security threat and recommended we close the case.

Object Details: Case was closed and object identified as light artifacts.

12-089-AN1 (Baltimore, MD)

 12-089_1

Synopsis: According to the witness, at 1845 hours on of 21 Nov 12, he was outside his home and saw an object in the sky that made him curious. The witness used his camcorder to zoom in on the object and, according to him, captured a “plasma UFO” on camera.

Evidence Submitted: Original video.

Initial Action: This UFO case was opened as a AN1, an anomaly that left no lasting physical effects, such as lights in the sky and similar phenomena.

Investigation and Findings:  The investigator interviewed the witness of this investigation (three times) and was deemed sincere and credible. An analysis of the celestial map the witness observed on 21 Nov 12; and an analysis of the witness’s video indicated a celestial object in/out of focus. On 24 Nov 12, at 1845 hours, API conducted an on-site investigation and observed the celestial object the witness reported. Investigators used a Canon 60D DSLR with a 70-300 mm telephoto lens and recorded several stars, including the star Menkalinan. When the camera’s optics attempted to focus on the Menkalinan, the star came in/out of focus giving them the appearance that it was a glowing orb; the red, blue, and purple colors, which the witness believed was plasma, is a natural phenomena called atmospheric scintillation. On 01 Dec 12, the investigator met with the witness and agreed the object was the star Menkalinan.

Object Details: The star Menkalinan in/out of focus combined with atmospheric scintillation. Menkalinan is a class A star with a temperature of 9200 K, not very different from Vega or Sirius. From its distance of 82 light years, we calculate a luminosity of 95 times the Sun’s, somewhat brighter than a normal class A main sequence star should be.

12-088-AN1 (Jacksonville, NC)

43181_submitter_file1__00234

Synopsis: According to the witness, at 1401 hours on of 27 Sep 12, he was on the beach taking photos. Later that day, while reviewing the photos he took, he noticed a strange black object on one of the photos. The witness submitted the case to MUFON, which was then sent to API for photo analysis.

Evidence Submitted: Original photo.

Initial Action: This UFO case was opened as a AN1, a fly-by of a UFO traveling in a straight line across the sky. A preliminary analysis of the photo indicated a hoax.

Investigation and Findings:  Forensics and Error Level Analysis displayed substantial rainbowing, which indicated two things: software was used to manipulate the photo and the photo was not the original/raw photo from the camera. Moreover, all edges under ELA should have been white in color. For example, under ELA examination the life guard tower has white edges, which indicates the tower is real. The object’s edges, however, are purple. This indicates the object is not part of the original photo.

Object Details: Case closed as a hoax.

12-079-AN1 (Biggs Junction, OR)

droppedImage

Synopsis: On the morning of 18 Oct 12, the witness of this investigation used a camera to take a photo of the sunrise. While reviewing the photo, the witness noticed a strange object in the photo. The witness provided the photo to API for analysis.

Evidence Submitted: A Photo of the UFO

Initial Action: This UFO investigation was opened as an AN1 – an anomaly that left no lasting physical effects, such as lights in the sky and similar phenomena. A preliminary analysis of the video indicated the UFO was more than likely a Catadioptric Lens Flares.

Investigation and Findings: After an interview with the witness, the investigators learned that the witness did not personally observe the UFO. The investigators applied cross-line analysis on the photo, which indicated the UFO was a lens flare. The sun, which is also in the frame of view, was the source of the lens flare.

Object Details: Lens flares are created when non-image forming light enters the lens and subsequently hits the camera’s film or digital sensor. The lens flare often appears as a characteristic polygonal shape, giving the appearance of a “flying disk or saucer”.

12-075-AN1 (Morley, West Yorkshire)

droppedImage

Synopsis: On 29 Sep 12, at midnight, the witness of this investigation was sitting on a porch and saw a very bright light in the sky. The light appeared to get brighter and then slowly faded away. The bright light lasted about 10 seconds.

Evidence Submitted: A Sketch of the UFO

Initial Action: This UFO investigation was opened as an AN1 – an anomaly that left no lasting physical effects, such as lights in the sky and similar phenomena.

Investigation and Findings: The investigators interviewed the witness of this investigation on two separate occasions. According to the witness, the bright object appeared 45°above the horizon and slowly fell until it dimmed away. After the interview, the investigators conducted research regarding any known meteor activity in the West Yorkshire area. According to several credible websites that track meteor reports, several witnesses reported a large meteor on the same date and time the witness of this investigation saw the UFO. The description of the object provided by the witness and the meteor activity in the same area concluded the object was a meteor.

Object Details: Meteor

12-077-CE1 (Newcastle, England)

droppedImage_2

Synopsis: The witness of this investigation claimed that while walking home he was approach by a very tall “Man in Black”. According to the witness, the Man in Black was wearing all black, had a very pale face, his entire eyes were black, and wore strange buttons on his coat. The Man in Black spoke softly and asked about the witness’ family and if he could talk to the witness’ twin brother. The witness told the Man in Black he had no twin brother and left. A few days later, the witness saw the same Man in Black wandering around the witness’ work location.

Evidence Submitted: A Photo of the UFO

Initial Action: This UFO case was opened as an AN4 – interaction of the witness with occupants or entities. Initial indices checks on the witness indicated a hoax.

Investigation and Findings: After several emails and interviews with the witness, the investigators learned that the alleged Man in Black was nothing more than a case of mistaken identity. At the time of the encounter, the witness believed the strange man’s behavior was “spooky” and that the clothing the Man in Black was wearing was unusual. The witness, however, after reflecting back to the incident later believed the man was just “a weirdo” and more than likely not associated with extraterrestrials or UFO phenomena.

Object Details: Mistaken Identify and Paranoia

12-074-AN1 (Pell City, Alabama)

droppedImage_2

Synopsis: On the morning of 01 Oct 12, the witness of this investigation used a mobile phone to take a photo of the sunrise. While reviewing the photo, the witness noticed a strange object in the photo. The witness provided the photo to API for analysis.

Evidence Submitted: A Photo of the UFO

Initial Action: This UFO investigation was opened as an AN1 – an anomaly that left no lasting physical effects, such as lights in the sky and similar phenomena. A preliminary analysis of the video indicated the UFO was more than likely a Catadioptric Lens Flares.

Investigation and Findings: After an interview with the witness, the investigators learned that the witness did not personally observe the UFO. The investigators applied cross-line analysis on the photo, which indicated the UFO was a lens flare. The sun, which is also in the frame of view, was the source of the lens flare.

Object Details: Lens flares are created when non-image forming light enters the lens and subsequently hits the camera’s film or digital sensor. The lens flare often appears as a characteristic polygonal shape, giving the appearance of a “flying disk or saucer”.

13-009-AN1 (El Paso, TX)

13-009.jpg

Synopsis: On 02 April 2011, exact time not yet determined, a group of kids used a video camera to record four unidentified objects in the sky.

Evidence Submitted: Original photo and video.

Initial Action: Case opened as an AN1.

Investigation and Findings:  Case was opened on 26 Jan 2013; Initial analysis of the witness’s video strongly suggested the UFOs were contrails highlighted by sunlight during sunset. During the investigation, the lead investigator found over 12 videos and 20 photos of known aircraft emitting contrails during a sunset. The videos and photo were nearly an identical match to the video the witness provided. Moreover, research was completed regarding the angles at with these contrails were heading. Although the contrails appear to be moving in a downward movement, they are in fact moving along the horizon. The appearance of the contrails moving in a downward movement is only an optical illusion.

Object Details: Man-made objects.