One of the problems in the analysis of the UFO lies in finding cases which seem to report the same object. Because the UFO is so variable in appearance, particularly at night (due to its luminosity, which may be an effect of atmospheric ionization), it can be difficult to find an indentifiable and stable feature.

However, I believe that I have found several occurrences of what is identifiably the same type of object based on a fairly obscure but noticable common feature. Of these, two are photographic cases, and four are accompanied by a drawing.

The cases are:

• Project Blue Book, #1119, 5/24/49 - Rogue River, OR
• Project Blue Book, #9666, 8/2/65 - Tulsa, OK
• 4/16/66 - Portage County, OH (Spaur / Neff case)
• 10/10/66 - Case from Rand UFOs: What to Do? George Kocher (newly released); near Newton, Illinois
• 1/3/67 - Sarnia, Ontario, Canada
• Project Blue Book, #11263, 1/9/67 - Mount Clemens, MI (a confessed hoax)
• 11/22/66 - Roaring River, Missouri

Related Work

It should be noted that the similarity between the Rogue River and Mount Clemens cases was remarked on in 1987 by Jenny Randles[footnote 1]. Randles acknowledges the hoax confession, but like the author is puzzled by the similarity to the 1949 Rogue River case which was classified until the 1980s.

The Photos and Drawings

These are not shown chronologically, simply to emphasize the similarities between the greyscale drawing and the greyscale photo.

Rogue River, OR (Project Blue Book 1119, 5/24/49)[footnote 2]
Mount Clemens, Michigan case (Project Blue Book 11263, 1/9/67)[footnote 3] Photograph 1[footnote 4] is an apparent side view Photograph 2[footnote 5] is an apparent oblique front / top view These photos are a confessed hoax - details are available
Tulsa, Oklahoma case (Project Blue Book 9666, 8/2/65)[footnote 6]
Portage County, OH (4/16/66)[footnote 7]
Photo-trace event, 11/22/66...Roaring River, Missouri[footnote 8]
Newton, IL (10/10/66)[footnote 9]
Sarnia, Ontario, Canada[footnote 10] 1/3/67

Blue Book Case #1119, based on the account from an Air Force report reprinted in Project Blue Book:

An employee in the supersonic laboratory of an aeronautical laboratory and some other employees of this lab were by the river, 2.5 miles from its mouth, when they saw an object. The time was 1700 hours on May 24, 1949 [document does not identify location]. The object was reflecting sunlight when observed with the naked eye. However, he then looked at it with 8 power binoculars, at which time there was no glare... It was of metallic construction and was seen with good enough resolution to show that the skin was dirty. It moved off in a horizontal flight at a gradually increasing rate of speed, until it seemed to approach the speed of a jet before it disappeared. No propulsion was apparent. Time of observation was 2.5 to 3 minutes.[footnote 11]

Additional information was developed from a declassified report obtained by researcher Jenny Randles:

The 22 page case file... [was] obtained... with help from... Dr. Bruce Maccabee... '... while fishing on the Rogue River, near Elephant Rock... [five witnesses saw] an object described as being round in shape, silver in color, and about the size of a transport aircraft'. It came from the east, then turned southwest, and left no exhaust trail... The disc appeared flattened and had a 'rilled edge' with 'a stabiliser fin' and a surface that looked 'wrinkled and dirty'.[Details of a comprehensive investigation by Air Force Office of Special Investigations follow.][footnote 12]

The Tulsa, Oklahoma case occurred as follows:

On the night of August 3 1965, 1:30AM, A. L. Smith, a turbine engine specialist with American Airlines, his son Alan (age 14), and three other persons were observing the unusual movements of a multicolored object that seemed to be approaching them in a shallow glide. When it was still several hundred yards away, it paused momentarily, and Alan snapped a picture with his inexpensive camera, using ASA 64 film. Rather than try for a second shot and risk ruining the first, Alan took the camera inside the house and ran back outside just in time to see the object moving swiftly into the distance.[footnote 13]

The Portage County, OH case occurred as follows:

Deputy Sheriffs Dale Spaur and Wilbur Neff of Portage County were investigating an abandoned car at about dawn when a brilliant glowing object rose out of the woods to treetop level and stopped overhead, illuminating them and the surroundings. A humming sound like an overloaded transformer was audible. They fled to the patrol car and notified the station, and were instructed to keep the object in view until a camera car could reach the scene. The UFO began moving away about 300-500 feet above the road, emitting an inverted cone of light (narrower at the bottom) to the ground. The light beam rocked back and forth in unison with a slight wobble of the UFO. A dark area and a projection like a large antenna were visible at the upper rear...[a long car chase, followed by observation of the same object by multiple independent witnesses followed; details available].[footnote 14]

The Roaring River case:

"...primary witness and two friends deer hunting, primary returned to camp, as he approached he saw smoke coming from the site. Found the 12'x18' tent and equipment destroyed, tent was smoldering but no flames or sparks were evident, shoes and some records still smoking, aluminum pole that had supported the tent were singed, but not burned, aluminum cots inside the tent were melted, tent was under two trees with dry leaves, they were not damaged(a very narrow path of heating) he noticed a dead tree 15 feet away which was 15 feet tall, the top foot was burning. He heard a low humming sound and saw the object rising from a valley just beyond the burning tree. Photo was taken seconds after it left the ground, second photo taken 5-8 seconds later as object was gaining speed and climbing shows a badly blurred object. Sighting lasted about 20 seconds. Humming became more intense as it gained speed, last seen 40 degrees above horizon and moving rapidly away. It was aluminum in color and refleced the cloud diffused sunlight. He could see what appeared to be a dark band or rim around the center. Object was stable in flight. He paced the distance to the point where the object had ascended from the ground, it was 300 feet. He estimated the diameter at 25 feet and 8 feet thick. Camera was a 620 format Argoflex with a coated varex 75mm, f/4.5 lens, shutter at 1/90 sec, f/8, depth of field if focused at infinity was 41 feet to infinity. Negatives were in the middle of the roll with camping images around them. The UFO image is about 1/4 inch in diameter on the negative, negatives were checked at Northwestern and appeared to be quite normal in exposure and appearance."[footnote 15]

The Newton, IL case reported in the Rand report reads as follows:

Time: 5:20 PM - "Mrs. A was in her kitchen preparing supper; five of her children were playing outdoors. The children shouted to her to "come out and see the silent plane". She writes "I glanced out the south window and there it was coming into sight just south of our 72 foot silo moving very slowly from east to west. It was about 35 feet high. My first thought was that it was a plane making an emergency landing, but when I saw it in full view, I knew it was no plane, not like anything I have ever seen. I hurried outside to join the children in the yard. It continued to move in a straight line to the west. We could see it clearly as it drifted over a 50 by 100 foot machine shed being built at the time [the workers were, however, in the fields this day]. It appeared to be larger than our car, and was more oval. There was a bluish glow around the ends, top, and bottom of it. It (the glow) wasn't bright, since it was daylight yet, but more like a low cloud, haze, or fog; or a mixture of bluish-grey tiny bubbles floating along around it. The object was seen clearly. It was blue in color and appeared to be made of metal. You could see [longitudinal] seam lines. There was one black window. I thought they (assuming someone was in it) could see out but we could not see them. I kept looking for someone to peep out and wave, but don't recall seeing or feeling anything at the time. There was a brownish-gold design on the lower back half. A raised part was on the top near the back which was noticed by all the children. It moved very quietly, making no sound at all except for a whirling or vibrating sound for 1 or 2 seconds as it drifted on toward the west... We followed it down the yard and lane, continuing to watch it as it was 300 feet, then 200 feet from the north and south gravel road and the REA electric line which is on the west side of the road. We were talking together, all very excited about what it was, where it came from, if there were people in it, and if it would rise to clear the electric line. It did; it rose so quickly and was out of sight in just a few seconds. Our eyes could not follow it fast enough. This was certainly a fantastic thing."

The surface appeared to be non-specular, like dull aluminum or metal, and blue, the color probably deriving from the self-luminous halo. Longitudinal seams were apparent, but no rivets or such were seen. The black rectangle was assumed to be a window and appeared to be recessed. It was not shiny, but "like the dark of night." The surrounding glow was partly opaque, yet self luminous. It was darker than the sky and extended about 1/4 the object's length in all directions. The halo was particularly opaque at the ends: of the object, obscuring the underlying parts. The design at the lower rear looked like a pattern of crosses and dots like (1) or (2)

Mrs. A says the glow obscured the design and in any case her attention was fixed on the "window". The only sound heard occurred when the UFO was nearest the unfinished shed, being constructed of a wooden framework covered with ferrous sheets. It is possible that some sheets were caused to vibrate. No electromagnetic effects were noted (TV was off) and no electrostatic or other effects were noted by Mrs. A or her children. As the UFO disappeared, Mrs. A was just looking along the road for a car; two of the children said the UFO pitched nose-up and as it went up a light or flame of orange color was seen at the rear.

Enough angular data was provided from building and landmark placement and sizes that it is possible to estimate the size of the metallic portion of the UFO at 16 to 20 feet in length, seen at a distance of 150 to 300 feet. Its linear speed was about 4 to 8 miles per hour, based on the above distances and timings obtained by re-enactment. It was visible for 4 minutes. Angular size was 2 3/4" at arms length. In an effort to quantify the colors somewhat, a Nickerson color fan was used by the witnesses to select the colors most nearly like those on the UFO. The color selections were made independently in direct sunlight with the color fan held in front of a white field. The colors given were

Metallic surface Mrs. A. 7.5 PB - 7 Child 1 2.5 PB - 8/5 Child 2 7.5 B- 3/5 Glow (The color of "grayness" was not uniform) Mrs. A. 5 PB - 8/5 2.5 PB - 8/5 Child 1 5 PB - 7/7 Child 2 2.5 PB - 6/8 Orange flare on ascent Child 1 5 YR - 7/11 Child 2 5 YR - 7/11

Second event: Same day, 6:30 p.m., sky is now dark. Location is in town of Newton, Illinois, about seven miles north west of first event.

Mrs. B was walking down the steps of a friend's house toward her car. "As I started down the steps my eyes were drawn by something in the south eastern sky. I stopped a moment and saw very clearly a luinous bluish object moving quite rapidly from east to west. It seemed to be rather low in the sky, but at night it is difficult to judge distance either as to how high it was or how far away it was. It did appear larger than a full moon, but instead of being round it had a definite oval shape. I would say an elongated oval. There was no sound that I could detect, and while it appeared to be blue and purple, there was also a whitish glow in it. The outline of the object was very distinct. I watched it until it disappeared behind some trees and a house a little less than a block from me.

The major axis of the oval was horizontal; its path was not perfectly horizontal) but somewhat undulatory. Its color was brightest and whitest at the center, becoming more blue and darker toward the edges.[footnote 16]

The Mount Clemens events are described:

"This photo of a saucer-shaped, unidentified flying object was made by two Mount Clemens area brothers, Dan Jaroslaw, 17, and Grant, 15. The boys say the picture was snapped with a camera behind their home on Lake St. Clair a mile from Selfridge Air Force Base. The Air Force says it knows nothing of the sighting. A Coast Guard helicopter in the area saw nothing. The boys say the unidentified object hung over the lake for 10 minutes, then raced away. Five minutes later the boys saw the helicopter. They say they are familiar with many kinds of aircraft. [Ann Arbor News Jan.10.67] The pictures were reportedly taken around 2:30 pm last Monday [...] [Ann Arbor News Jan.16.67][footnote 17]

These photos are a confessed hoax - details are available.

Six days prior to the Mount Clemens sighting, this sighting was made in Sarnia, Ontario:

Dorothy [Lewis]... spotted a strange metallic craft in the sky, that slowly drifted out over Lake Sinclair.

As you can see from her drawing, the circular craft had a tail piece attached, but no wings. Dorothy noticed light shining out through the many porthole windows that dotted the outside edge of the craft.

She said the most unusual aspect of the sighting was the way the craft would pivot slow, back and forth, while keeping its tail part stable, as if the tail where locked into position as it hovered over the Lake.[footnote 18]

Possibly Related Documentary Cases

These cases may or may not be related. The absence of drawings or photos makes it more difficult to determine the relationship of these cases to the information above. Nonetheless, these cases are interesting in their own right, as well as in this context.

• A radar visual case occurred in the early winter of 1953, over Wiltshire, England. Flight Lieutenant Cyril George Townsend-Withers observed a strange blip while operating the radar. The object was tailing the plane. A sweeping radius turn allowed them to see the object, which was metallic, round, like a thin disc, with two small tailfins at the rear. It flipped vertically into the air and climbed upward at an astonishing rate, vanishing within a couple of seconds.[footnote 19]

• A car factory employee reported to Jenny Randles a sighting which he had in May or June 1957, whose description tallied with the Rogue River case. The witness, Bill Dillon observed this object while a student at Ramridge School, Luton, England. No additional details were provided when the reference was published in 1987, in hopes of obtaining corroboration from other possible witnesses.[footnote 20]

• A radar visual case from the USSR began on an evening in 1985 at 4:10 AM when Aeroflot flight 8352 observed a strange yellow light while cruising at 30,000 feet in clear conditions. A "blob" shot out and downward from the light, and projected a cone of brilliant (greenish?) light at the ground below. Two additional beams appeared, and features on the ground could be seen to be illuminated. One beam then swung around and illuminated the aircraft cabin. The light appeared to approach and resolved into a greenish luminosity as much as several degrees in extent, which then paralleled their course. "There were multiple lights of different colors and fiery zig-zags that crossed the vapor. It lit up like a Christmas tree" (Note the possible similarity to the Tulsa object luminosity). At this point, the aircraft was coming within range of the ground controller, who could then also see the object. The object seemed to change shape. "It developed an 'appendage' and then 'became' a 'wingless cloud-aircraft with a pointed tail' ( the spike?). The yellow and green glow, like phosphorescence, was eerily intertwined" (Note possible similarity to Tulsa). A second aircraft was vectored nearby and also could see the object near the first aircraft. Talinn approach radar detected the aircraft and the object, and also experienced unusual radar interference.[footnote 21]

Unconfirmed Similar Cases

The following cases appear to be sightings of similar objects, however, their source is a set of typed documents from some files inherited by this analyst. The original source of these cases is unknown. If you know anything about these cases, please contact the author.

Comparing the Objects

Obviously there is at least one feature common to all of the reports. That is the superstructure, which, according to the 1949 report, the Spaur / Neff report, and the Sarnia report, is at the rear of the object.

This feature can be observed as a blunt shape in the 1949 report, a spike in the Newton report, as a somewhat more vague structure with a spike in the Tulsa photo, and as an "antenna" in the Spaur / Neff observations. The Sarnia report refers to the object as "pivoting" around the superstructure. The Newton report and the Tulsa photo both indicate red luminosity at the rear of the object, and the Spaur / Neff case indicates that the area around the superstructure was darker than the bright luminosity of the rest of the object.

Examination of the photos indicates that the shape of the spike is actually such that the feature is larger from side to side than from front to back, so in some object orientations, the spike appears as a "fin" (Sarnia?), and in others as an "antenna" (Spaur / Neff). This geometry can be at least somewhat confirmed by the Tulsa photo, which looks slightly down on the superstructure, and also suggests the flat shape.

In the Roaring River photo, there are some indications that the "fin" is a cone, with an indentation or opening in the top. Note also the faint dark streaks which seem to trail the fin. Whether these are an artifact on the photo or are a result of some effect of the "fin" is not known.

The superstructure seen in these cases is not a frequently observed feature. For instance, it does not appear at all in any of the 160 case drawings from Raymond Fowler's UFOs: Interplanetary Visitors[footnote 22]. That a patchy structured luminosity similar to the Tulsa photo appears in no more than 2 out of those 160 may indicate that form of luminosity as also being characteristic of this specific configuration. Neither is the superstructure included in any of the "UFO types" of the massive NICAP (National Investigation Committee On Aerial Phenomena) UFO Evidence[footnote 23] report (except for one sketch of the spike in conjunction with a spherical object).

Speculations

The area of the "markings" in the Newton case may correspond to one of the apparent vents on the Tulsa photo. If so, they may indicate some external component of whatever generates the luminosity. However, it is likelier that the luminous areas are actually on the rim, while the Newton feature was at the lower rear.

It is also possible that the two vertical ovals on the side of the Tulsa object represent the often reported circulating rim lights, caught in the process of circulating. A cursory analysis of the spacing indicates that there would be eight equally spaced spots around the circumference of the object, with four or five potentially visible at one time.

Importance of the Evidence

These cases are important for a number of reasons:

• They represent one of the few instances where an object has a feature sufficiently distinguishable to allow it to be identified in several cases, distributed in time (1949, 1965, 1966, and 1967) and space (unknown, Tulsa OK, Portage County, OH, Sarnia Ontario Canada, and Newton, IL).

• It might be possible to attribute a single case describing a specific feature to the imagination of the witness, or a single photo of an object showing that feature to a hoax. These explanations are extremely implausible when different witnesses at different times and different geographic locations report that same feature, and, in two cases, photograph it. All of these cases (except Sarnia), are multiple witness cases. I contend that this set of cases is one of the strongest evidences for UFO reality of which I am aware. In addition, it completely demolishes the contention by skeptics that Spaur / Neff were fooled by Venus, since there is no reason that those officers should misidentify Venus to have a feature common in so many other reports (and two photos), none of which called special attention to the feature in question.

• These cases represent, so far as I know, the only instance where a photograph showing the appearance of an object in the daylight and darkness has been found. This allows a number of conclusions to be drawn about UFO luminosity. The same type of object can have a metallic appearance (daylight), faint whole body luminosity (twilight), structured luminosity (darkness), the ventral cone of luminosity (darkness), and discrete rim lights (darkness). More information is needed about the behavior of the object in these reports (i.e. angular speeds) to try to draw conclusions about the relationship between the configuration of the luminosity and the behavior of the object.

More information on the relevance of the Tulsa photo to the understanding of UFO luminosity is available in my analysis of UFO luminosity.

Footnotes

1. Randles, The UFO Conspiracy, ISBN 1-56619-195-5 p 89

2. Drawing source is Brad Steiger's Project Blue Book, ISBN 0-345-26091-0-195, reproduced there from the Blue Book files.

3. These are digital enlargements of two of at least 4 photos from the case. The original photos show foreground objects such as tree limbs.

4. Photograph source is the Michigan Zetetic website.

5. Photograph source is Brad Steiger's Project Blue Book, ISBN 0-345-26091-0-195, reproduced there from the Blue Book files.

6. Photograph source is LOOK Magazine Special Issue on Flying Saucers, LC# 67-17223. The print shown there is large and of high quality. It is an enlagement from the original photo, which shows the object as occupying only a very small part of the picture. This lends additional credence to the details discovered upon enlargement. The non-enlarged photo can be seen in Brad Steiger's Project Blue Book, ISBN 0-345-26091-0-195

7. Drawing source is Brian Zeiler and Jean van Gemert's web site.

8. Ted Phillips, personal e-mail communication

9. Drawing source is Rand Corporation report UFOs: What to Do? George Kocher (newly released)

10. Drawing source is the report web page.

11. Project Blue Book, Edited by Brad Steiger, ISBN 0-345-26091-0-195

12. Randles, The UFO Conspiracy, ISBN 1-56619-195-5 p 89

13. Edwards, Flying Saucers - Serious Business, p164-165 (Bantam Paperback Edition), no LC or ISBN

14. Brian Zeiler and Jean van Gemert's web site account of the case.

15. Ted Phillips, personal e-mail communication

16. Drawing source is Rand Corporation report UFOs: What to Do? George Kocher (newly released)

17. Thanks to Lloyd Jacobs of Toronto for bringing the source website for Mount Clemens to my attention. Note that this case is a confessed hoax.

18. Thanks to Lloyd Jacobs of Toronto for bringing the source website for Sarnia, Ontario to my attention

19. Randles, The UFO Conspiracy, ISBN 1-56619-195-5 p 41

20. Randles, The UFO Conspiracy, ISBN 1-56619-195-5 p 89

21. Randles, The UFO Conspiracy, ISBN 1-56619-195-5 p 115

22. ISBN 0-553-13299-7

23. May 1964