Aerial Phenomenon Investigations (API) Aerial Phenomenon Investigations Team Fraudulent, Scam, For-Profit, Narcissistic, Unprofessional, No Credibility, Unsubstantiated Internet

The Aerial Phenomenon Investigations team claims to offer a comprehensive and impartial analysis of various claims of UFO sightings throughout the United States and abroad.  Research thus far has shown that this organization lacks the credibility to engage in such activities on such a topic--which is a controversy in and of itself.  This report makes no arguments for or against the field of UFO research (also known as "ufology").  Rather, this presentation sheds light on an infant group that demonstrates the hallmarks of a corrupt or soon-to-be corrupted organization.

The background of the director and founder of the organization cannot be proven.  Antonio Paris claims to have extensive experience in the US Army, the Department of Defense, and various government contractors to include SAIC and Booz Allen Hamilton.  The only citing evidence of this is through self-published claims from Paris himself and a few candid photographs of Paris alongside his supposed colleagues--all of whom are never mentioned by name and whose faces are censored.  Paris' claims have not been proven either through official documentation, or through open source or public information repositories.  Challenges were made to Paris for official document numbers or lead information in order to validate his background; however, all inquiries were met with resistance.  Research was conducted based on information available, despite lack of additional personal identifiers.  Queries with the personnel departments of SAIC and Booz Allen Hamilton also yielded no results as both companies claim no employee, affiliate, or independent contractor by the name of "Antonio Paris" or variations thereof.  Antonio Paris claims to have maintained high-level security clearance(s) and to worked at sensitive installations operated by the US military, to include government facilities such as one near Groom Lake in Nevada.  Additionally, he has made several attempts to solicit participation from the public to provide input or analysis on the same places the claimed to have worked.  Assuming Paris was, in fact, an insider (or former insider) himself, one could suppose that such solicitation is unnecessary.  Furthermore, if his claims of having access or clearance were valid, one could reasonably assume that his experience would yield more detailed information with respects to his alleged work claims.  Instead, however, based on videos and information put forth by Paris himself, he is only able to provide his audience with stories and videos that parallel the long-existing parity of media, amateur, or hobbyist coverage of places near or similar to Groom Lake.  Paris does not offer any evidence or information to prove that he has had any security clearance, been granted access, or had any association with any sensitive government installation or facility.  Rather, Paris has directed the audience's attention to personnel security repositories and to alleged government databases, and has challenged the members of the audience to validate his credentials themselves.  Since the general public cannot and will not be granted access to such databases, Paris has conveniently obscured his background from verification.

The group's vision and history is clouded.  API, particularly through its founder, has asserted impartiality, professionalism, and expansive experience as it relates to their investigations.  However, Paris himself asserts in print and through various interviews that he personally believes in the existence of extraterrestrial activities and beings.  To make such a claim, contradicts the claims of objectivity made by Paris.  Secondly, the group demonstrates a lack of professionalism in dealing with public constructive criticism.  Paris, and assumingly many of API members, have posted on various web sites promoting their ideals and purpose.  Some of their posts were not well received, and yielded honest constructive criticism.  Rather than provide more background information or explanations that can be proven, the group has resorted to immature antics and expressions of those who challenge the credibility of the group or intentions of the group.  Third, the implications and explicit arguments made by the group of having decades of experience in the field of ufology could not be proven either.  However, there are signs and indications that reveal that this group is inexperienced at minimum, or profiteers at most.  For instance, the organization's web site solicits donations from the public, most of which will be applied towards various investigative supplies.  One would have assumed that a professional organization, with its breadth of experience, would have even the most basic resources and would not have the need to solicit such donations.

The organization appears to have spawned from the founder's yearning for attention.  The group has championed itself as a revolutionary model in the field of ufology.  The group has presented several videos promoting their organization and its mission.  However, analysis reveals that the videos are a tangible means for the founder and the group's members to display their talent and creativity with multimedia platforms, video editors, and soundtrack software.  For the most part, Paris, in particular, relentlessly attempts to draw's the audience attention towards the production and material of the video, rather than to the content of the video itself.  For instance, the use of various captivating graphics and copyrighted audio soundtracks appear to be the focus of video, rather than the issue being presented.  Other times, the videos tend to have an unbelievable premise to elicit an audience response.  In both cases, the underlying principle appears to be the same: In general, API is making attempts to diminish any and all accusations of being an otherwise amateur or hobbyist group in the field of ufology; whereas Paris is using the videos and other presentations made through the web site as a vehicle through which he can channel some form of personal narcissism.

At this point, Antonio Paris and the Aerial Phenomenon Investigations team, can only be credited with having a talent for using photo and video editing software; for making unsubstantiated claims regarding the organization's history and the credibility of its members; for crafty use of internet search engines and social networking web sites to market his group; and for eliciting an overabundance of unpopularity and unanswered constructive criticism.