Synopsis: On 26 May 2013, at approximately 1540, the witness of this investigation took a photo of an unknown object while taking photography of a bird.
Evidence Submitted: Original photo.
Initial Action: Case opened as an FB1.
Investigation and Findings: This investigation is still Closed.
Object Details: Photo analysis revealed a bird, out of focus, in flight.
Synopsis: On April 6th, 2013, the witness of this investigation used a camera to take a photo of unknown objects hovering over Baltimore, MD.
Evidence Submitted: Original photo.
Initial Action: Case opened as an AN1.
Investigation and Findings: This investigation is closed.
Object Details: Investigator, two API colleagues and the NOAA official are in agreement that the object videotaped by the witness is most probably a high altitude ham balloon launch.
Synopsis: On 20 Jan 13, the witness of this investigation was driving and noticed a large object in the sky. The witness stopped the vehicle and took a photo of the object. On March 8th, while reviewing the photo, the witness noticed a “dark line” that seemed to rip through the sky. The witness thought it was something on the vehicle’s windshield – but upon further inspected noted it was not.
Evidence Submitted: Original photo.
Initial Action: Case opened as an AN1.
Investigation and Findings: This investigation is closed.
Object Details: All indication point to the WITNESS having observed and photographed an upper atmospheric disturbance known as “shear instability” in the midst of forming. Researcher contacted a local expert and educator, Dr. James Carton, Chair of the Dept. of Atmospheric and Oceanic Studies at the University of MD who said in his e-mail reply of March 22, 2013: “Looks a bit like Shear Instability.” Further internet research showed instances of similar looking upper air disturbances. Although it cannot be stated with 100% certainty, all indications point to shear instability as the cause for the observed aerial phenomenon.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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
