The Levelland Sightings Of 1957 by Antonio F. Rullán: Conclusion

The Levelland sightings and vehicle interferences, despite being a puzzling mystery that is highly rated amongst UFO researchers, were not very well documented and investigated.  The evidence available consists only of eyewitness testimony.  Moreover, of the seven eyewitnesses who reported vehicle interference, only three were fully interviewed in person.  The accuracy of four of the seven eyewitness reports was deemed to be low.  All seven eyewitness’ accounts, while similar in general terms, were different in the details.  Therefore, it was difficult to determine whether the differences were due to accuracy in reporting or due to the variability of the phenomena.  The poor quality of the testimony available, the lack of consistency among the reports, and the different manner in which these reports were collected should not place this case amongst the well documented, high quality, UFO cases.

Despite the weaknesses in the quality of data available for analysis, we reject the ball lightning hypothesis as an explanation for the Levelland events.  Rejection of the ball lightning hypotheses, however, is based on the lack of evidence for ball lightning causing vehicle interference rather than lack of stormy weather in Levelland.  Weather data sheets and newspaper accounts show that there was no storm in Levelland or Lubbock during the time in question.  Nevertheless, climatological data sheets from the US Weather Bureau show that thunder and lightning were observed in Lubbock one hour after the sightings ended.  Thus, weather conditions conducive to ball lightning were possible in the area.  Moreover, ball lightning researchers have observed that 10% of the reported ball lightning observations have occurred in clear weather.  Thus, the lack of a thunderstorm during the Levelland sightings does not necessarily imply that ball lightning was impossible.

There were other observations that also lead to the rejection of the ball lightning hypothesis (size of object, motion, behavior, and physical effects).  These deviant observations, however, were made mainly by four witnesses whose reports were considered low in accuracy.  While this evidence is weaker, it does support the rejection of the ball lightning hypotheses because the observations made did not fit the range of properties given to ball lighting. 

The main reason to reject the ball lightning hypotheses for Levelland is that there are no documented reports amongst ball lightning researchers connecting ball lighting to temporary automobile engine stoppages and/or headlights failure.  Until that connection is made, the source of the Levelland sightings will continue to be considered Unknown.  This conclusion, however, does not imply that the object sighted was an extraterrestrial craft.  There was no compelling evidence to conclude that the object sighted was a craft of any sort or extraterrestrial in nature.