Here is our latest video case summary, for case 14-044. This one was a fireball from Australia:
Redacted ROI for Case 16-009
Witness Sketch 16-009
Case 16-009 is a single witness case from Oregon in which a T-shaped object flew overhead. The witness was judged credible, and no explanation for the sighting was found.
See our Investigations Page for all publicly available ROIs.
Redacted ROI for Case 12-058
Physical Evidence, case 12-058.
Case 12-058 was a high strangeness case in Maryland that involved a small amount of physical evidence from 2011. API examined the physical evidence and determined that it was consistent with the witness’s account. Recently, we have completed the ROI and closed the case. A redacted version of the ROI is now available.
This same witness has many memories of UFO sightings and other strange experiences, but the investigation focused on a small subset of what was reported to us.
See all our publicly available ROIs on our Investigations page.
ROI for Case 12-020 photographic anomaly
One of the witness photos from 12-020
Case 12-020 was based upon photographs taken in 2006. This case illustrates that apparently interesting anomalies showing up only on photographs are nearly always something mundane upon further analysis. We took a very close look at these photos to make sure.
Read the redacted ROI for 12-020
Do you have questions for API for Episode 14 of Case Files?
Episode 13 is done and will drop soon, but we want you
r questions and comments for Episode 14. If you want to submit your question anonymously, just use the contact form and tell us you wish to be anonymous.You can also e-mail us on the encrypted protonmail.com using the address reportaufo.
If you have a recent UFO sighting you would like to us to discuss on the podcast, please use the sighting report form.
If you want us to use your name on the podcast, please let us know how to pronounce it. We can even call you up and record you asking your question, or can call 240 233 1253 and leave a voicemail. In your voice message, please be sure to tell us that it’s OK to use the recording on the podcast.
Case 11-003
One of API’s earliest cases. Campers near Sailsbury, Maryland were frightened by what they saw and heard and left the campground.
Case 13-081 – a tornado of lights in Pennsylvania
On the night of 22 September 2013, a father and son saw and photographed this “tornado” of light spiraling up from behind the tree line near Wilkes-Barre, Pennyslvania. There were other similar reports the same night from the state.
13-081 (1 of 3 photos)
Case 13-128: A UK Black Triangle
In December, 2013, witnesses in North Petherton in England saw a black triangle type craft.
Read the redacted ROI for the case.
This is a sketch by one of the witnesses (not an actual photograph):
Case 13-128 witness sketch
New Video: The API Sighting Report Form
Unidentified Science 7 – High Strangeness Cases
This is a work in progress – notes on high strangeness cases and the hope, if any of a scientific approach to them. What do we mean by high strangeness cases? I mean cases that may or may not involve anomalous aerial phenomena, but go beyond even close encounters of the third kind, and also involve unexpected elements like interactions with the witness, distortions of time, and other strange events that generally fall under the broad category of “paranormal.”
I have resisted lumping paranormal experiences with UAPs, and continue to resist this, because at face value, different categories of human experience could well admit of different explanations. However, what is common in all this is the human experiencer, and in nearly all cases all we have to study are the memories of the experiencers. In Unidentified Science 3, I talked about some of the problem with eyewitness testimony, rooted in the flaws of human perception and memory, and almost as much of a problem are our oversimplified mental models of how these work.
But this is not a reiteration of those concerns, real as they are. I want to make a point about high strangeness cases, and that is that we have no basis for dismissing them out of hand, or for ignoring the stranger elements, or for regarding the experiencers as mentally deranged. We have the experiencers, their memories, and what they are willing to tell us about themselves, and we are not justified in jumping to conclusions about the reality of the experiences. Note that I am not approaching these cases as a psychologist who wants to know how people could possibly remember such absurd things. That is one possible approach, although I don’t think it’s completely satisfying by itself. As a field investigator, I want to find the facts of the case, and we struggle with the facts, if any, masked by all the oddities.