Synopsis: According to the witness, on 07 Oct 2012 at 1500 hours, he took a photo of a UFO hovering near San Francisco, CA.
Evidence Submitted: Original photos.
Initial Action: This UFO case was opened as a FBI, a fly-by of a UFO that traveled in a straight line across the sky.
Investigation and Findings: This UFO case was closed due to lack of information.
Object Details: Unresolved.
Synopsis: According to the witness, he was outside his home in Hoboken, NJ and spotted a UFO in the sky. The witness used a Canon DSLR camera to take several photos of the UFO. Note, investigation still open. Details, including date and time, were not provided to API.
Evidence Submitted: Original photos.
Initial Action: This UFO case was opened as a FBI, a fly-by of a UFO that traveled in a straight line across the sky.
Investigation and Findings: Case closed prematurely; lackluster witness cooperation.
Object Details: Unresolved.
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: WITNESS was driving east on Interstate 94, approximately 3-4 miles south of Miles City, Montana. It was 18:30 (local mountain time) on Sunday, November 4, 2012 when WITNESS observed in the sky what appeared to be two blinking lights heading slightly different directions. After 20-30 seconds of observation, WITNESS dismissed the lights as commercial aircraft at high altitude. However, about 2 minutes later, WITNESS then looked slightly left outside his car window and noticed a very bright, light-blue light. The light was traveling very quickly downward toward the ground at an angle between 5 to 20 degrees at a slight northeasterly direction (essentially towards the eastbound interstate upon which the WITNESS was driving) and then within 1-2 seconds, the object very fluidly and smoothly turned out of its steep dive, leveled off just parallel to the ground, and disappeared immediately after this maneuver.
Evidence Submitted: Original sketch.
Initial Action: This UFO case was opened as a AN1.
Investigation and Findings: According to the WITNESS statement, Investigator determined the WITNESS was looking directly at the Frank Wiley Air Field just outside Miles City, incorporating a portion of Montana known as the Hayes Military Operations Area (MOA). In fact, the Hayes MOA includes a large swath of northeastern Montana. Further, Investigator found that in 2010, Montana State Sen. Ryan Zinke (R), a retired Navy Seal with experience deploying drones in Iraq, directed a project focused on bringing unmanned aerial systems to Montana. Additional research confirmed that unmanned aerial systems are now deployed in the skies over Montana. Investigator found a military Memorandum of Understanding identifying Miles City as the only Dispatch Center for the Hayes MOA in Montana. Of special interest is the fact that the Miles City area has recently been designated as a military “Lights Out” Operations area. In other words, aircraft and other aerial systems being tested will not necessarily have any aviation lights or even normal exterior aircraft lighting.
Investigator called and confirmed, with the Ellsworth AFB (Rapid City SD) Flight Scheduler, that Department of Homeland Security drones are being flown along the Canada/Montana border, but not in the Hayes MOA. The Flight Scheduler also explained that these drones are incapable of flying in the manner described by WITNESS. Although it is possible other unmanned aerial systems are being tested by the military/industrial complex, there is no proof this is taking place over the area the WITNESS reported his sighting. So, even though unmanned aerial systems are deployed in the skies over Montana, the area they are officially allowed to operate does not include most of Montana—only the portion along the Canadian border. If other unusual testing flights are taking place in the Miles City MOA, the Ellsworth AFB Flight Scheduler responsible for flight operations in that MOA claims no knowledge of it.
Investigator called the Miles City air port dispatcher, an employee of the Bureau of Land Management who operates the Frank Wiley field, and asked about flight operations in that area. This air field does not have an Air Traffic Controller. Rather, landing lights are activated by incoming pilots dialing up an automated frequency to initiate the runway lighting sequence. However, according to the dispatcher, this lighting sequence does not approximate in any way what WITNESS observed. Of interest though is the fact that the Air Field is situated on hills, following along the Yellowstone River, running adjacent to the Interstate. According to the WITNESS, the object “disappeared” after its diving maneuver. IF the object was operating around this air field, it may have merely been obscured by these hills. Investigators conducted multiple interviews with the witness and was cleared as credible.
Although a drone cannot approximate what the WITNESS observed, there are reports that the US Military/Industrial complex is testing plasma energy weaponry that could operate much as the WITNESS described. A recent report details that the US Army is developing a weapon using dynamic pulse detonation (DPD), a short but intense laser pulse creating a ball of plasma It is possible secret testing of a new plasma weapon is taking place in the Hayes MOA, but Investigator is unable to determine any reliable explanation for what WITNESS reported. Case is closed as Undetermined.
Object Details: Unresolved.
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.
Antonio Paris, the Founder and Director of Aerial Phenomena, has been invited to provide a lecture on Ufology at the University of Maryland Baltimore on July 26th, 2013. The lecture, which will cover UFOs and the Paranormal 101, will be provided to a class of psychology students.
Synopsis: According to the witness, on the morning of 02 June 1975, he was adducted by two aliens while riding his bicycle near Janesville, Wisconsin.
Evidence Submitted: Five photos of alleged wounds inflicted by aliens.
Initial Action: This UFO case was opened as a CE5, an abducted witness that suffers from physical and psychological injuries.
Investigation and Findings: After a four-month investigation and several interviews with the witness, the was riding along a trail and saw an unidentified metallic cylinder craft standing upright with tripod landing gear. The craft also had a giant parabolic rectangular radar dish that was slowly rotating. When the witness approached the craft, he saw two aliens. The two aliens, however, did not look like the grays typically seen during a close encounter. According to the witness, these aliens looked similar to the creatures Travis Walton described years later in his abduction. The aliens, according to the witness, are described as “wrinkly light brown in color with very thin arms and legs and eyes that were a little bigger than the average humans but separated much farther on the face. They also had a very small mouth”. When the witness stopped to observe the craft and the two aliens, the witness claims “time” appeared to have stopped and that he “froze and could not move”. At this point, one of the aliens saw the witness. The witness was then startled by a car horn and when he looked to his left he saw his mother in her car along the road. His mother said she was worried because he had been gone for over 8 hours, although only minutes had passed for the witness. Investigator Note: Initial cooperation with the witness provided additional information to this investigation; however, at times the witness would not participate in the investigation for several months – claiming he had been abducted by aliens, which accounted for his absence. As of early October 2012, the witness no longer responded to the investigators inquiries and the case was closed as unresolved.
Object Details: Case closed as unresolved.
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
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