| Links | |
| Books |
|
|
A case was reported to CT MUFON via the NUFORC (National UFO Reporting Center). It was investigated by State Section Director Investigator 2 and Assistant State Director Investigator 1.
The image above has been reviewed and approved by the witness. The document is currently under his review.
The witness was driving from Meriden to Middletown on Sunday, 4/19/98 at 9:30 PM when he drove past the Mount Higby Reservoir in Middlefield (first observation at approximately Longitude -72.722789, Latitude 41.538515). The car was travelling east, and the object was observer first at approximately the 10 o'clock position relative to the direction of travel.
The object was hovering near or over the water and its reflection was observed in the water. There were three lights in a triangle formation, which were very bright point sources that did not seem to cast light on the nearby trees. The lights were slightly bluish white, closer to flourescent light than halogen. The lights were described as bright as "baseball stadium lights" (the witness' girlfriend lives a block away from a small stadium, thus the familiarity with this sort of light). No scintillation was observed, but some halation may have been present due to the brightness. The object was twisted such that the closest point was skewed slightly to the west, and so that the west side of the object drew a nearly perpendicular line between the front and west side lights at the first observation point. No stars were visible and the witness did not see the object in front of any background objects at any position - therefore it remains possible that these were three lights in formation rather than an object. No thickness was discerned. The witness did observe the lights through trees from the third reference point, which is about 30 feet higher than the other two locations. The initial triangulation indicated that the object or formation was close to or over the west shore of the reservoir. No sound was heard, but the witness did not stop the car and the driver side window was up throughout the sighting. The observation between locations one and two may have been about a half minute (0.08 mi (map measured) at 15 mph (witness estimate)).
The witness car was not equipped with a radio. No engine interference was noted.
He slowed his vehicle (no other traffic was evident) and continued to observe the object for the entire distance of the shoreline/road interface which is approximately 300 yards, or 10 to 12 seconds by his recollection. At the end of the reservoir the road takes a 70 or 80 degree turn to the left (north) and begins to climb perhaps 30 feet in elevation. This portion of the road moves along the east shore of the water however there are rather thick and tall white pine trees between the road and the shoreline at this point. While travelling along this section of road the witness observed the object through the trees for another 2 to 3 seconds before the lights "just went out" and the object disappeared. At that point the witness had slowed to a near stop.
The witness is familiar with the sighting location, driving that road several times a day for an extended period.
The initial interview took place on 4/26/98, one week after the observation, starting at the witness' mother's home, a modest but well-kept apartment. The witness located for us on a sketch three observation points, and the angle of observation from two of those points. He also provided a sketch of the object as framed within the driver side window of his car, which allowed for a crude elevation estimate. We drove to the site, but due to poor weather, were unable to conduct a thorough on-site evaluation. We did have the witness indicate the observation locations and the approximate angular size of the object. During the interview at the house he sized the object as 18 to 20 inches at arms length. Later, on site, he estimated it to be approximately 12 inches at arms length.
Based on the initial information, calculations indicated that the object was at an approximate altitude of about 50 feet (5 degrees elevation, very uncertain) above the reservoir, at an approximate distance of 0.1 mi (fairly certain), and was approximately 100 feet across (derived mostly from flat angles and angular size - should not be affected by elevation uncertainty). It is estimated that the pine trees around the reservoir, which are of nearly uniform height, are between 30 and 40 feet high (not measured).
The witness is a young man (age 19) living with his mother in Middletown. He has a girlfriend and a child but is not married. He does not live with his girlfriend (who lives in Meriden). He is a high school graduate and is currently seeking employment. He has some artistic talent, but does not appear interested in unusual, SF, or fantasy subjects, based on the work I examined at his home.
During the interview, the witness constructed a model of the object by tearing paper into a triangle and demonstrating the orientation of the object with the model. The witness corrected the investigator when leading questions were asked with incorrect information provided in the question, demonstrating that his story does not change based on investigator expectations. He seems to be stable, courteous, intelligent, and cooperative. His mother indicates that her son was shaking and would not immediately enter the house after his sighting, due to his emotional state. He was "shaken" and said "Mom, if I tell you something you've got to promise me you won't laugh". She states that the police laughed at first, until she indicated how upset her son was. The witness asked that his name not be used, which adds slightly to his credibility (he is not seeking publicity).
After relaying the story his mother telephoned the Middletown Police. The officer spoke to her, then to the witness. This was verified by Investigator 2 speaking to Officer Paul Mounts. Officer Mounts received the call on Sunday, April 19th at approximately 2230 hours. After the mother talked, he spoke to the son. He described the witness as not frightened, but concerned and said that he told the story as if it had really happened and not as if he was making it up. After the call, Officer Mounts dispatched a cruiser to the location (negative results) and contacted Life Star Helicopter service to determine if there were any flights in the area at that time (negative results). It seems that that particular stretch of highway is dangerous and has had a good number of accidents requiring ground and air evacuation (Note: There is a lighted sign for traffic heading west on the road; the sign is at the base of the hill, near a intersection). Next, the officer phoned the National UFO Reporting Center in Seattle, WA and left a message. Some time later, Peter Davenport telephoned him and discussed the case. Peter then contacted the witness and interviewed him.
Notes from Investigator 2 on the witness (beyond those integrated above): "First, the young man, the witness, seems credible and sincere. I could detect no motive (notoriety, money, attention etc.) to cause him to make up such a story. Secondly, there were absolutely no contradictions in his story from the telephone or the face-to-face interview. Thirdly, and most importantly, his mother's description of his reaction and statements upon his arrival home are quite convincing.
"The witnesses reported observation of this object from two locations and two different angles will assist greatly in triangulating its exact position and size. Queries of another local police department (Meriden) and the Local State Police headquarters have found no other reports on the evening in question."
I arrived at the location at approximately 8:30 PM, which was about 45 mins after sunset. There was still some light in the sky. I spent a half hour sitting beside the south part of the reservoir, looking in the direction of the sighting (roughly North). During that time, I observed a variety of air traffic. The majority of the air traffic in the area goes from SW to NE. Some minor traffic goes NS along the W side of the reservoir, and some does appear over the E side, also going NS. A few, very high, travel roughly WE. During the entire 2 hours, only one bright landing light was seen on the NE side of the reservoir (the general direction of the sighting).
I timed some auto traffic at 8:30, using my tape recorder. There are definitely gaps large enough (at least on a Wed night) to fit with the witness's account. The traffic basically clumps behind a slower leader, and there are long enough gaps for that area to be totally free of cars for some period of time, even at 8:30 on Wed. At a guess, the period is 30 secs to a minute.
I met the witness at the site. We were able to get good azimuth and elevation for several positions. It seemed as if the object was over the NE end of the reservoir, not the W side as was implied by sight lines on his first sketch (however that was not supported by his view out the window sketch). But that's why we do on-site checks. We also got a position over a landInvestigator 1 for one of the sight lines, so that one is very solid.
Some air traffic passed during our interview, but the witness did not call attention to it.
The witness indicated that the object lights were very bright - as bright as car high beams at a distance of 30 feet. The reflections on the water were comparable to those of a streetlight seen across the base of the reservoir. There was no illumination of the trees. This suggests that the lights were beyond the reservoir on the NE side.
We reenacted the drive, starting some distance before the start of the observation.
The witness' speed was 40-45 mph before the first observation. The lights were bright enough to be seen through a fair thickness of trees prior to reaching the reservoir. He then saw one light exposed, then all. His speed at that time dropped to 30 mph or below. He slowed again and shifted his attention as he reached the intersecting road at the base of the hill. He then looked for the lights and saw them through the pines for perhaps another 0.1 mi. At that time two of the lights were 8 in apart at arms length.
The lights did not show variations in brightness, other than would be expected by obscuration[footnote 1].
The witness then sped up to try to catch up with someone who had passed him back near the highway. He did catch up with them at the next light. There were two people in the car. He does not remember the color or type of car. He says the driver was looking back and forth but not up, so the witness thought they had not seen it. In any event, he did not stop them or speak to them. However, given the hour, we can assume they were probably headed home, and may very well have been going to Middletown or Portland.
The witness is very familiar with the road. He drives it as many as six times a day. There are lights on the north side of the reservoir, but it is impossible to reach them without using the MDC roads (I tried). The witness is familiar with those lights. They are sodium orange, are of a different geometry, and are not as bright as the lights observed. Otherwise, the area is very dark. Even the lights of cars coming down the hill are hard to see until they come into the open. There are some streetlights in the area (south end of reservoir), and a flashing sign, which faces east, at the bottom of the hill before the reservoir.
The witness states he has never seen anything like it before or since.
I stopped at a tavern near the reservoir. The bartender had not heard anything, but wasn't working the night of the sighting. I was not able to contact the bartender working that night, despite several attempts.
The weather on 19 April (Sunday) at 2100 hours (0130Z) at Westover Air Reserve Base was clear, winds SE at 3 knots, and temperature 48 degrees F. Later that evening high thin (cirrus) clouds began moving into the region as a prelude to Monday's rain. All this is verified by NOAA GOES Satelite (both water vapor and IR) as of 2145Z (2145 hours local) on 19 April (downloaded photos on file). The reason that the witness didn't notice any stars when he observed the object is probably because the northern sky, when viewed from that point, would have been [slightly] bright due to the "Hartford" glow just 20 miles away (To the south and sometimes to the E and W, stars were visible, but to the N, stars below about 30 degrees elevation are obscured by the sky brightness (Cashman)).
On 5/2/98 I conducted yet another site visit, this time in daylight, to get good site photos and to get a GPS trace of the road around the reservoir. I also obtained coordinates for each of the triangulation locations using the GPS and cross checked it with foot and odometer readings. I also did azimuth estimates (again) based on my recollection of where the witness indicated the UFO to be, as a cross check on the results from his using the estimation method.
There is a cell phone tower on the top of the ridge. This cannot be seen from the reservoir.
I visited the tavern again, but received no help. The bartender on the sighting night was a fill-in and it was unpredictable as to when she would be working again.
I contacted the FAA, which keeps no records of such flights.
I contacted the local Army National Guard. According to Staff Sergeat Cloutier of their operations desk, they had no flight operations that day.
I contacted the Westfield ANG operations. According to Captain Meyers, they had no flight operations that day.
I have spent some time on the mapping of the sight lines. (see maps below)
There are a total of 5 sight lines.
1 is at the pullout. The lights are visible but behind the trees.
2 is at the first Investigator 1er past the start of the guardrail. One light is unobscured, but the rest is still behind the trees.
3 is 6 posts from the start of the guardrail. All three lights are visible.
4 is at the end of the guardrail, just before the hill and the diverging street. All three lights are visible, and a landInvestigator 1 is used for alignment by the witness.
5 is halfway up the hill. The lights are visible through the trees.
Uncorrected...
1, 4, 5 cross (imperfectly) at 0.1 mi. +- ~100 feet
3 diverges W and is probably an error in the Investigator 1ing or the orientation of the street as shown on the digital map.
2 crosses 4 at 0.25 mi
Sight lines 1,4, and 5 sweep counter clockwise (E to W), in order, as they should, based on the movement of the witness vehicle. 3 is in error. 2 and 4 cross at 0.25 mi., however, 2 does not sweep with 1, it crosses over 1. Thus, 2 would appear to be in error.
Based on this, the evidence appears to indicate a distance of 0.1 mi. and that the object was approximately 145 feet out over the reservoir. Note that the variance in the crossing of these sight lines is close to the estimated size of the object, so this error may be partly due to the witness fixing on a different light of the triangle at 1, 4 and 5.
During the measurement, the witness initially incorrectly Investigator 1ed the form for line 1 about 25 degrees counter clockwise from the position his arm was pointing. This was corrected by the witness. If a derived 25 degree clockwise correction is applied to sight line 2, sight line 2 now intersects the exact location of the intersection of lines 4 and 5. Interestingly, if the triangle of intersections represents the size of the object (100 feet per side, good agreement), the location of sight line 2 now intersects the unobscured portion of the triangle according to the witness testimony. Therefore, I recommend provisionally accepting this correction, with a lower probability than 1,4,5.
The reenactment elevation is 18 degrees. Given that, the calculated altitude is 171 feet, and the size is 118 feet across. This is not inconsistent, given that the witness sketch shows the highest light at about the diameter of the object above the water. However, the apparent precision of these figures is misleading - there is certainly an error factor. Nonetheless, this looks like a good case and a good set of measurements.
Most of the distances were derived by direct measurement on the digital map. The following shows the calculations. Note that two different elevation angles are used, and that the compromise distance of 0.1 mi was used (the maps show that the witness was at a variety of distances, ranging from 400-800 feet).
The formulae used are as follows:
Sight Distance = Ground Distance /cos(Elevation*(@pi/180))
Altitude = sin(Elevation*(@pi/180) )*Sight Distance
Actual Size =tan(Angular Size *(@pi/180))*Sight Distance
Alt in Feet = Altitude *5280
Actual Size In Feet = Actual Size *5280
The witness stated that the lights from the object did not light the trees by the side of the reservoir - or at least that he did not see such illumination, but that they were reflected in the water. I decided to spend a little time on a qualitative assessment of whether that was possible.
To review, the object was about 500 feet distant, at an altitude of about 150-200 feet. It was 100-200 feet from the pine trees on the edge of the reservoir.
The witness compared the brightness of the lights to that of high beam auto headlights at a distance of 30-50 feet.
High beam auto headlamps have an output of 110-135 W[footnote 2].
I took my car to a nearby area and projected my high beams at a line of maples, oaks, etc. 200 feet distant. The trees were clearly illuminated. I then walked about 100 feet further away (as far as I could get). The illumination was still visible, but dimmer.
However, another test I performed compared the reflectance of a pine tree with a deciduous tree. The pine is about half as reflective.
Given that, the additional distance of the witness from the object, and the altitude of the object, which could have reduced the flux to the trees, it seems this part of the account is credible.
Given that the output of a light such as an automobile headlight beam might be 110-135W[footnote 3], and given that the witness estimated the brightness as equivalent to the brightness of an automobile high beam at a distance of ~30 feet (~10m), and given that the triangulation provides us with the distance to the object, it is possible to calculate the approximate intensity of light actually emitted by the object by matching the lux value (lumens per square meter) with a distance of 500 feet (152m).
The following table shows the results of attempting to match these intensities, using the efficiency of a halogen lamp (assumed to be 20% higher than the 17.5 W / lm of a standard incandescent bulb) - the most common headlamp for automobiles:
(Note: the 60W Incandescent was used to validate the formula that used 17.5 lm/W; it is not relevant for the "halogen" lumens calculation, since it does not produce light at that efficiency)
Formulae used:
Halogen.Lumens = Watts *(17.5 + (17.5*0.2))[footnote 4]
Halogen.Lux At Distance = Halogen.Lumens /('Distance (m)' ^2)[footnote 5]
This suggests that the UFO at the measured distance might have been emitting between 75kW and 93kW of energy to produce the described lighting (three sources) at the "halogen" efficiency. It also tends to invalidate any aircraft explanation, since such an aircraft would require about 14 MW of energy for each light even at the low value.
Note, however, that the light from the headlamp is focused in a single direction, which means that its brightness is based on collecting all of the emission from the sphere of radiation and projecting it toward the witness. If the light from the UFO were emitted equally in all directions, then the light perceived by the witness would represent only 1/(4pi) of the light emitted[footnote 6]. In this case, the resulting wattage would be on the order of 1 MW for the three lights together.
On the other hand, ideal sources are much more efficient than a halogen. For instance, the ideal white source is 242.5 lm/W[footnote 7]. At such an efficiency, the UFO would only need to produce roughly 2.5 kW to attain the same brightness as the halogen headlamp (as in the original calculation, if focused toward the witness).
A more realistic model may be the flourescent lamp, given that many UFOs are observed to generate a luminosity which may be similar to that produced in such a lamp. Assuming 3 times the efficiency of the incandescent lamp, the resulting energy is approximately 12kW for each source, or 36kW for the three sources (as in the original calculation, if focused toward the witness).
Obviously, the witness is far from a calibrated luminance measurement device. Still, these numbers provide some guidance as to the possible energy of the UFO.
Note the important features of the area:
Note that three of the five sight lines intersect at a distance of around 0.1 mi. One of the non-intersecting lines (position 2) when corrected, intersects the same location. The other line is not correctable.
Note that two uncorrected sight lines go in the general direction of the cell phone tower. Three lines go in that direction after correction. However, the tower is unlighted, and its top is below the ridge line from the sighting location.
Other photos are on file.
Note: This simulation shows the foreground trees and bushes outlined with light and the far trees partly illuminated. This light is for visualization purposes only. The witness states that the trees were not illuminated by the lights.
Both investigators were favorably impressed by the sincerity of the witness. The witness spent significant time working with the investigators, especially in determining the triangulation. While his social circumstances must be taken into account, there is no evidence that the witness had any prior interest in UFOs or that the witness would hoax the event. In fact, given the information from the police officer and NUFORC, the opposite seems to be true. At no time did the witness inflate his account or make any substantial alterations.
A news story was run in the Middletown Press seeking additional witnesses. Though some reports from other areas and other times did surface, no confirming reports were brought to us.
Because of the relatively short duration of the event, a triangulation was obtained which indicates the relative nearness of the object or formation and its large size. Even if this is ignored, or assumed incorrect, the large angular size requires a correspondingly large source. In this case, it is possible that such a source could be a formation flight of aircraft. However, there are a number of problems with this suggestion:
The lights were reflected in the water. This would require the formation to be at extremely low altitude.
The sight lines alone, even ignoring their triangulation, for instance, lines 3 and 4, make it very difficult to attribute this to an aircraft sighting, since these aircraft would have had to have been both close and at low altitude to display the indicated apparent motion between viewpoints.
Taking the above into account, it is also hard to understand how there could not be a major variation in light brightness over the course of the sighting. Landing lights, the only aircraft lights bright enough to cause such an impression of brightness (as bright as high beams 30 feet away), are significantly focused - that is, their light is primarily emitted in one direction - and even a small variation in heading or relationship of the witness to the source, should have caused significant dimming or brightening.
None of the normal fluctuation of aircraft landing lights, generally caused by aircraft vibration, were noted by the witness. This question was asked several times.
A plausible distance and altittude for the formation would have been about 1 mi away, which would translate the elevation to an altitude of 1700 feet, and separation between formation members at that distance would have been around 1200 feet. This is not unreasonable. In the course of the 0.5 - 1 min of the sighting, the formation would, at a speed of 120 mph, have travelled 2 miles, which would have placed its final location 1 mi beyond the reservoir to the west. This is not inconsistent with the sight lines, but at the final sight line, the witness would have been looking almost directly at the rear of the formation, and it is difficult to understand how this would allow the lights to retain nearly the same brightness throughout the sighting, or even for the lights to be visible through the trees from the final sight line.
Note, however, that no aircraft formations could be confirmed in that area at the time of the sighting.
One might argue that a combination of effects was assembled to make this sighting. For instance that the witness first saw the formation, and then, from within the trees at sight line 5, saw some other light sources. This cannot be ruled out, but no light sources which would contribute to such a misperception were seen during the site visit.
The witness emphasized an impression that the lights were connected by a solid object, but could not confirm actually having seen one. The sky brightness may not have been sufficient to outline any shape if present - certainly even the witness felt the impression of an object connecting the lights was no more than an impression.
In conclusion, the sighting appears to remain unidentified, though it is possible that an aircraft formation, as yet undocumented, was responsible. The use of triangulation appears to indicate that a triangular object or formation hovered over the Mount Higby Reservoir for a period of at least between 30 seconds and one minute. The lights were at an altitude between 50 and 180 feet, and the lights were approximately 100 feet apart. The energy emitted by the object to produce the lighting may have been in the range between 75 and 93 kW.
1. The witness stated that the light behaved as if it were focused on him at all times, but that there was no beam. (8/27/98 additional interview)
2. http://www.nextcollection.com/html/n6.html
3. http://www.nextcollection.com/html/n6.html
4. The Internet Light Bulb Book - http://www.misty.com/~don/bulb1.html#eff
5. http://www.natmus.min.dk/cons/tp/lightcd/lumen.htm
6. REA Physics Problem Solver, ISBN 0-87891-507-9, p 923
7. The Internet Light Bulb Book - http://www.misty.com/~don/bulb1.html#eff
This site is an archive of the content of the MUFON CT website from the late 1990s. The current MUFON CT organization should be contacted through the MUFON web site.