by UFO History Buff & Author, Charles Lear
The National UFO Reporting Center, started in 1976 by Robert Gribble, has been a mainstay in UFO research ever since. Its present director is Peter Davenport, who took on the position in 1994. As the name implies, NUFORC is primarily a reporting center, but there are four investigators, Keith Bickford, John Budrys, Ben Hansen, and Lynda Thompson, listed in the “About Us” section of the website. While browsing the “Posts” section, the November 28, 2025, post titled, “Mysterious Lights in Northern Michigan – A NUFORC Investigation” caught our eye. It covers a case investigated by Budrys and has a link to his report and the report of the primary witness.
According to the post, from September into October 2025, a couple in northern Michigan had “repeated encounters” with basketball-sized illuminated objects. The couple, a 75-year-old artist and her 87-year-old husband with a PhD in psychology live in an isolated area with no nearby light sources, which made the lighted objects they saw stand out.
The woman, considered to be the primary witness, reported that the first sighting was of a small object on September 1st at 11:38 p.m. It’s described as, “a compact object with three shifting, multicolored illuminated sections, which changed shape while remaining part of a single structure…” The witness managed to capture it on 1m 24s of video, which was attached, along with four others, to her initial written report to NUFORC.
The second sighting was on September 28th at 9:00 p.m., with the primary witness and her husband observing what is described as “a more complex display: multiple lights of varying shapes and colors appearing and disappearing at eye level near the front of the house.” The husband “expressed concern” when a group of three lights in a “V” formation within a “dark circular form” separated and rapidly moved off in different directions. After getting over their surprise, they set about capturing video. Part of the ground on their property was “softly illuminated during the occurrence.”
The last sighting described was on October 2nd at 12:32 a.m. The primary witness saw a bright white light that hung silently over their stable. She videoed it for about 35 minutes, and while the object didn’t seem to react when a beam from a powerful flashlight was put on it, the video showed it changing position.
According to the section of the post under the heading, “The Investigation,” Budrys owns a nearby cabin and was able to interview the witnesses, including their son whose own observations were not part of the original report, and see the site for himself. He found the witnesses to be “highly credible” and was able to verify the remoteness of the location.
The initial interpretation that what was seen was a “diffuse energy form” was “reconsidered” after viewing the video, which seemed to show a structured form consisting of “six, multicolored luminous components.” The idea that the objects might have been drones was rejected due to their silence and low flight paths in wooded areas, and that they might be astronomical phenomena was rejected due to their approaches to within 20-30 feet. It is noted that the sightings occurred during “unusual and largely unlogged military air activity near Camp Grayling.”
According to the section under the heading “Conclusions,” Budrys “concluded that the object was most consistent with a compact, silent, structured technological system of unknown origin.” That it might be some secret advanced human or alien technology “cannot be determined.”
The witness’s submitted sighting report, # 193270, identifies the location as Elmira, Michigan. The report is extremely thorough and includes descriptions of what was seen on each night with far greater detail than those in the post. For example, the witness describes the object seen on September 1st this way: “The object appeared to be a single unit with three distinct illuminated sections that were pulsating pink and white most of the time, but also shifted through many other colors. These sections constantly changed shape, appearing to move and transform independently, yet remained part of one connected object.” According to her, when she watched the video the next day, she noticed that “it didn’t simply vanish—it moved in a “V” pattern and zipped away.” She also noticed “another bright shape” cross the frame from the left close to the camera at around 1m 18s. She notes that there were several instances of static, which she’d never seen before in “hundreds” of videos taken prior to the sighting.
A still photo and five videos are presented after Budrys’s report. We assume that the video from the first sighting is the second one down after the still as it is 1m 24s long. The object seen in it is quite small (this is true for all the videos), but the shifting pattern of multicolored lights can be clearly seen. There are instances of static, and notably, at 1m 18s, static is seen after a blob-like something comes down from the left and goes below the camera.
The third video down seems to be from the second sighting as what might be a lens flare can be seen to the right of something with three lights that periodically move into a “V” shape. The witness and her husband are heard commenting. The lights start off being red and slowly shift to being white by the end of the 1m 10s video.
The next video down is 42s and a white blob seen at the beginning shifts into what looks to be five separate lights that appear somewhat polarized by the end.
The last video is 19s and seems to be of what was seen over the stable, but it is very dark. A tiny white light can be seen between tall trees, and it’s above a white rectangular structure. The ground appears to be illuminated. By the end of the video, what seemed to be a single light has become two lights, one on top of the other. The still photo before the videos seems to be what the witness was referring to when she wrote this just after the description of the September 28th sighting: “I have a photo clearly showing its position and distance from the ground relative to the stable, providing a good visual reference for its height and location.” There is a light in the photo, but it’s not made clear if was actually there or added for illustration.
In all of the videos, which have sound as the witness/witnesses can be heard during them, there is no sound from the lights/objects. While what is seen is quite small, it does resemble the descriptions in the reports.
The witness wrote that she consulted ChatGPT before submitting her report. Considered as possibilities for the sightings were astronomical objects, planes, drones, and ground-based sources. According to her, none of these “fit the full set of observations.”
Budrys’s report follows, and it has much of the information already presented. He says the witness only included the “3 better sightings” in her report and that there were other sightings, including one by the witness along with her son. That was of something so far away both of them thought “it could have been anything.” According to Budrys, the couple’s dogs weren’t alarmed during the sightings, but at one point, the primary witness became concerned that “maybe it was after them” and “was scared enough to stay in the house and not investigate any further.”
Along with the details of his investigation, Budrys includes comments supporting the claims of the witnesses including this one after describing the witness and her husband showing him a photo they took of the moon through some trees to see if they could have been fooled by it: “But I did not see multicolored sections as in the subject object videos. And these are not witnesses who are hallucinating on drugs and thinking the Moon is 20 feet away.”
Budrys’s conclusions were presented in the post, but they have a personal touch in his report, reflecting his first-hand involvement. He says he told the husband he was “sad to say” he didn’t know what they’d seen, and he compares the mystery to that of the orbs over New Jersey earlier that year that were dismissed as drones by the “current administration.” He wonders “if the repeated visits and extended duration may indicate the object is trying to convey something,” particularly to the wife, and adds that what the message might be and why the couple was chosen for the visits “is unknown.” He closes by thanking the couple for their detailed report, time, and assistance.