Those few residents of Centerville, Ohio who were up and about around 5:30 a.m. on Saturday morning, March 6, 2004 were going about their normal routines, waiting for daylight to break. Activity at police dispatch headquarters, meanwhile, was anything but routine.

Phone lines began to light up with citizen complaints of bizarre ‘flashing in the sky’ and electrical disruptions that seized a large area from Lakeview Drive to Bethel Road, Stone Lake and Linden. One after another the calls came in.

“Centerville Police?” said the flustered police dispatcher to yet another caller.

“Has the whole street called?” came the voice on the other line.

“Oh my God…” the caller could be heard exclaiming.  “I saw it, it was right over my house and it hovered down… I can’t believe I’m saying this! It looked like an ALIEN SHIP…!”

Needless to say, this morning would not be so routine at police dispatch headquarters.

The resident on Lakeview Drive, later contacted for this report, contends that a solid physical object was present in the skies near Stingley Elementary School in Centerville. This object was hovering at near treetop level and would interact with nearby power lines, causing an arcing ‘flash’ that would send a powerful explosive report across the sleepy and confused neighborhood.   1

This detail is consistent with callers heard on the 9-1-1 police tapes of the incident, obtained through the diligence of UFO investigator Bruce M. Forrester, Jr., of Bellbrook, Ohio, in which area residents inform of the sky lighting up and electrical disruptions. One caller said the source of the bright flashing was from somewhere ‘near Stingley school.’   2

The Lakeview Drive resident who lives across from the school, and who also observed the object with his wife, said: “This house-sized object was a saucer-shaped metallic structure, polished aluminum surface with alternating sets of rotating, flare-like lights. The two sets of lights clearly rotated in opposite directions and were very bright, consisting of several colors ranging from yellow, amber, white and blue. There was no smoke or exhaust that I could see.”

This UFO was somehow interacting with power lines near Stingley Elementary School, according to the primary claimant. After each blinding explosion the air pressure in the neighborhood would “change” with a loud concussion, and at that point all the power would go out across the neighborhood. Following this disruption, the UFO would vanish from its place at treetop level near the school. The same – or a separate, identical object – would ‘reappear’ over an adjacent field as the power in the region would slowly restore. This object would then assume a slow path and amble back toward the school to its previous position where it would again explode with a flash after making some kind of ‘arcing’ contact with the power lines. This procedure, as said by the Lakeview Drive resident, would repeat several times.

Trees in the area were burnt during this drama, branches and limbs were said by the Lakeview Drive witness to flame and ‘glitter’ for several hours after the incident. The sparkling glitter was likened to flashing 4th of July fireworks.  3

“I wish that there was a good explanation for this,” said the Lakeview Drive witness, a 25-year old father of a newly born baby and working in ‘financial services.’ “It moved over the school and came down in the field. I saw it raise and lower. I know it was controlled and I wish I had somebody to come to my door and lay it on the line, just give me a good answer for all this.”

According to police logs obtained from the Centerville Police Department, the station was swamped with the calls coming in at around 5:37 a.m. and police officers were dispatched to the scene shortly thereafter.   4

Fire logs obtained from the Washington Township fire department indicate that a fire truck was dispatched to the location at 5:48a.m. and another unit sent at 5:58 a.m.   5

Making this situation a tad more interesting are reports that emergency responders in the fire department ladder truck also saw the UFO, and the gauges on their emergency vehicle ‘went funny.’

“The firemen were repeatedly asking me for descriptions of what I saw, and I told them and they said ‘that’s the same thing we saw.'” According to Lakeview Drive resident, citing firemen and police officers that loudly communicated with each other at the scene of the bedlam.   6

One area resident, standing in the midst of the hustle and bustle, jokingly said: “It must be Osama Bin Laden.”

“I told the two fire officers what I saw and asked them if I sounded like a complete lunatic,” said the Lakeview Drive resident. “He told me that I was not a lunatic and that they saw it too, and it made the gauges in their truck go nuts.”

Following this tantalizing lead, an inquiry was made to find out if emergency responders were also witness to this UFO.

Telephone greetings to the Centerville Fire Department’s “Station 41” about this issue were not warmly received, and the simple phone call requesting some basic information on the March 6 dispatch was rejected.

Lieutenant Sarah Lee, handling the inquiry to her department, advised that (oh joy!) she could not be of any help. To the contrary, the wagons were circling, the mote was being filled and hatches were being battened down as it was announced that any incoming inquiry must be made via “written request.”

“Why don’t you call Wright Patterson Air Force Base?” she said after listening briefly to the weird 9-1-1 tape by telephone.

“Wright Pat can help you more than I can. Unfortunately, I cannot answer any of your questions,” then advised Lt. Lee of the Centerville Fire Department. “It is routine procedure and policy for us to not ‘give out’ information without proper authorization.” 7

Like sheesh, you’d think this was an inquiry to Ft. Knox about their security methods.

Suddenly the operations and practices of this basic public agency seemed to be operating like the Freedom of Information Office of the super-secret “Blue Room” of Wright Patterson Air Force Base, the very base the inquiry was referred to.   8

A friendly letter was then penned to Fire Chief Parks, basically begging to be put in contact with the emergency responders who were on the scene of the UFO incident on March 6.

“I am not sure who gave you your information but it appears they were aware of something we did not see or share in,” said Fire Chief Kenneth C. Parks in response to the plea.   9

Apparently, The Chief also did not take kindly to the request for contact info with the emergency responders who were dispatched to the scene on March 6: “Our people are required by policy to refrain from discussing fire department actions without proper authorization. By policy, their reports are their response to any questions, outside of court action.”

Chief Parks speaks and the specter of court action is now vocalized. Courtesy, begging and pleading did no good, it seems, as the firemen at the scene will continue to remain anonymous and, interestingly, a friendly chat with a UFO investigator has been averted. One for officialdom.

But before the curious reader might find refreshing the idea of friendly openness and neighborly cooperation from the City of Centerville and her hirelings, there is also the attitude of Centerville’s Assistant City Manager, Judy Gilleland.

Gilleland was unaware of the mass confusion of March 6 despite assuring that she ‘would be’ aware of any such report as was described to her. This assistant City Manager seemed to take little interest or concern in the report of an object hovering over Stingley Elementary School.  10

“I believe I would know about downed power lines and trees and again, have heard nothing of the sort.

“Good news for us,” she said before curiously adding: “perhaps bad news for you?”

Assistant City Manager Gilleland, Fire Chief Parks and Lietenant Lee were all advised that there should be some concern of radioactivity near the site of Stingley Elementary School. These public employees clearly expressed a lethargic lack of motivation for the nature of the event described by witness on March 6. Is this a dangerous complacency that reeks of ultimate disregard for public safety in an uncertain time? Could Homeland Security be any more proud?   11

There may or may not be a firm explanation for the object described over Stingley school, but even if it were to have been some classified military operation (Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton/Beavercreek is less than 19-miles northwest), there should be some valid concern regarding a military operation so low over a residential quarter and near a school. Further, the type of propulsion method used on such a classified project and the possibility of lingering radiation near the school could pose threatening conditions for families and children in the areas of the school, Lakeview Drive, Bethel Road and Linden Road. This is and should be a sober concern.

When notified of this concern and asked to undertake action to check for radiation readings, the public officials of Centerville, Ohio took no safety measures in response to the appeal for caution.

Instead, public hirelings in Centerville have dismissed this episode as a case of ‘wires arcing in high winds.’ 12

An inquiry made with the National Weather Service at Wilmington, Ohio revealed that although there was a high wind alert earlier on March 5th, high winds during the time of the reported incident were not an issue. Between 4 ? 5 a.m. on March 6, 2004, temperatures and conditions in Centerville, Ohio were in the mid 40s with winds out of the Northwest at only 12 miles per hour.  Not quite the high winds previously reported.   13

Further complicating the ‘high wind’ dismissal would be comments from a telephone receptionist at DP & L (Dayton Power & Light) in which the cause of a power outages near Lakeview Drive on March 6 was due to a “circuit lockout” that took place from 5:34 until 10:45 a.m. resulting in service disruption, with no mention of high winds being made.   14

As for the Lakeview Drive resident, he isn’t very comfortable with the situation.

“It’s clear to me that something blew up there where the burnt trees are,” he said. There is no transformer there to blow up. That concerns me, given the magnitude of the explosion.”

The incident early in the morning of March 6, 2004 is real. Multiple callers to police headquarters advised of an unusual situation and upon arrival, emergency responders did address the situation of arcing power lines along with downed tree limbs. But essentially the strangeness of this whole situation rests with the testimony of the Lakeview Drive resident and his wife, both claim a very sensational, physical and intelligently controlled object situated low in the sky near Stingley school. This is reflected on the emergency 9-1-1 police tapes as the caller considers his own words with disbelief at what he is claiming to observe in the sky near his home. While others in the neighborhood were indeed alarmed and also calling police headquarters, they were only reporting generic ‘flashing’ in the sky along with power disruptions. The Lakeview Drive resident further informs that officers with the fire department did tell him they saw this object too, and the instrumentation on their vehicle was oddly effected, Most unfortunately, and also quite curious, is that this cannot be independently verified as per Chief Parks’ unusually harsh reference to court action.

And disturbingly, the Lakeview Drive resident also reports being sick in the last week of March, feeling nausea with a headache, a sickness he would describe as ‘low blood sugar’ even though he has never been diagnosed with this sickness. He also reports concern that his infant has experienced hair loss, although this could be normal as babies sometimes do lose their hair.

Or then again, perhaps it’s just those high winds.

NOTES
1.  Friday, March 26, 2004 telephone interview with Lakeview Drive resident, also involved in the conversations were investigator Nancy Talbott of BLT Research (Cambridge, Massachusettes). The claimant also followed up with several E-mail contacts, answering 17-specific questions in correspondence dated April 17, 2004
2.  9-1-1 audio tapes from the Centerville, Ohio police department, March 6, 2004 obtained by Bruce M. Forrester Jr., Zephyr Technology, P.O. Box 55, Bellbrook, OH 45305
3.  Inspection of the material by infrared scans of both the charred and unburned areas by Phyllis Budinger of Frontier Analysis. Also solvent extractions (hexane, acetone/methanol mix and water) from these areas and spectra analysis with nothing unusual detected. E-mail message May 3, 2004
4. “Call For Service Record” from the Centerville, Ohio Police Department dated 3/06/04, Call #: 04-006497. Responders were Officers J.A. McDaniel and D.G. Gaudette. Obtained by Bruce M. Forrester, Jr., Zephyr Technology
5.  Fire logs and other reports released by Fire Chief Kenneth C. Parks of the Washington Township Fire Department, April 1, 2004. Information requested ‘in writing’ by Kenny Young in letter dated March 30, 2004 as per instruction of fire dept. personnel
6.  Comments from Lakeview Drive resident to Kenny Young in E-mail message dated April 1, 2004
7.  Return call to Kenny Young from Lieutenant Sarah Lee, Centerville F.D. Station #41 at 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday, March 30, 2003 calling from 937-438-2771
8.  Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater often spoke of the harsh, expletive filled reprimand by General Curtis LeMay after asking for access to the legendary BLUE ROOM of WPAFB
9.  Fire Chief Kenneth C. Parks of the Washington Township Fire Department, in a letter dated April 1, 2004. Information requested ‘in writing’ by Kenny Young in letter dated March 30, 2004 as per instruction of fire dept. personnel
10.  E-mail comments by Judy Gilleland, Assistant City Manager for Centerville, Ohio. dated March 29, 2004. Gilleland was contacted because City Manager Gregory B. Horn had taken vacation time and was unavailable for comment
11.  Weeks after the event, the branches were analyzed with a radiation detection monitor by Phyllis Budinger, Frontier Analysis.  No radiation above normal background was detected. E-mail advisement May 5, 2004
12.  E-mail comments by Assistant City Manager Judy Gilleland (March 29) and letter by Fire Chief Kenneth C. Parks (April 1) advising that high winds throughout Washington Township caused wires to arc.
13.  Inquiry with The National Weather Service at Wilmington, Ohio by investigator Donnie Blessing, State Section Director for Ohio MUFON (Mutual UFO Network). Inquiries made in report filed March 9, 2004
14.  Telephone inquiry with Dayton Power & Light (DP&L) in which they advised of a ‘CIRCUIT LOCKOUT’ effecting Lakeview Drive region on March 6 between 5:23 and 10:45 a.m., inquiry made by Kenny Young, Friday, March 26, 2004

The 9-11 Tapes

The following is a transcript of police tapes obtained by investigator Bruce Forrester, state section director with Ohio Mutual UFO Network (MUFON). The tapes are from the Centerville Police Department and accompany a ‘Call For Service Record’ that states:”Numerous calls on electricity going on and off. Many people saw an explosion type lights in the area of Stingley School. The sky had lit up and they saw something hovering in the sky.”

Dispatch at 5:37 a.m., call cleared at 5:10 a.m, March 6, 2004

DISPATCHER: Centerville Police?

CALLER 1: Yeah, this is a non-emergency call.

DISPATCHER: Okay.

CALLER 1: Um, I’m over on Bethel Road,and you’ve probably had a few people call you but I just wanted to make sure. Our electricity keeps flickering, and I see out the window the skylight up and something loud like a transformer humming… have you been made aware of that?

DISPATCHER: No, nobody’s called on that.Is it behind your residence that you are seeing this?

CALLER 1: Actually it lights up the entire sky, and it is not anywhere where I can see it…

DISPATCHER: I’m sorry, let me get this 9-1-1 call, just a moment. 9-1-1 police, fire and medical?

CALLER 2:  Yes, my name is Dennis Wills (sp?) 174 Linden Drive, Centerville, we’re getting loud or large electrical flashes off the power supply system behind our house?

DISPATCHER: Okay, on the other line I just had someone from Bethel Road and he is seeing the same thing. Isyour electricity flickering?

CALLER 2: Yes, it comes on and off and we’re getting a huge flash. And it’s done this about four times.

DISPATCHER: A flash, where outside?

CALLER 2: Yes outside, and the lights just all came back on again.

DISPATCHER: Is it from your backyard,is it immediately in…

CALLER 2: We think it is immediately close. I was trying to call DP&L, but there’s just a huge, computerized’no person’ phone line.

DISPATCHER: Okay. All right.

CALLER 2: I haven’t actually been able to see it actually arc, we just see a huge flash.

DISPATCHER: Okay, we’ll send someone out. Okay sir?

CALLER 2: Okay, thank you very much.

DISPATCHER: (to first caller) My other call was about the same thing, he lives on Linden Drive. And he is seeingflashing, maybe by his treeline. I’m sorry, I have another 9-1-1 call,what is your address on Bethel?

CALLER 1: 105

DISPATCHER: 105, thank you sir. Bye.9-1-1, police, fire-medical?

CALLER 3: Ahhh… has the whole street called?

DISPATCHER: No sir, what is this about?

CALLER 3: (Laughs) The whole street,the electricity is going on and off. And there’s really…

DISPATCHER: What is your address, I’m getting more calls on this!

CALLER 3: 166 Lakeview… holy crap…are you…. there is something in the sky!

DISPATCHER:  Okay, just one moment sir!

CALLER 4: This is just ungainly…

DISPATCHER: 9-1-1?

CALLER 4: Yes, my name is John McKeef (sp?) and I’m calling from Stone Lake Drive…

DISPATCHER: Okay, all right. About flashing?

CALLER 4: Yes. That’s correct.

DISPATCHER: Okay… all right, we’re going to check this out sir.

CALLER 4: Okay, we’re not the first to call then?

DISPATCHER: No, no sir. Thank you.

CALLER 4: Okay, bye bye.

DISPATCHER: 9-1-1/Centerville police

CALLER 5: Ah yes, do you happen to know what’s going on in our neighborhood.

DISPATCHER: No, we’re having an officer in the area, what is your address?

CALLER 5: 157 Bradstreet Road. I triedto call DP & L but it’s automated and…

DISPATCHER: Allright, I’m sorry, just one moment. Okay, we’ll be in the area.. do you see where it’s coming from?

CALLER 5: Well, if I look out my kitchen window, looking up towards the school…

DISPATCHER: Is that your back or front,ma’am? Your kitchen window…

CALLER 5: Um, my kitchen window is facing going up towards the school… so it would be…

DISPATCHER: I’m sorry… what school?

CALLER 5: Stingley…and ah, it looks…the sky just lit up pink…

DISPATCHER: Towards Stingley?

CALLER 5: Yes,

DISPATCHER: All right, okay. Thank you.

CALLER 5: Thank you.

(Segment in which ‘Caller 3′ is on hold,beeping tone in background. Caller 3 states: “OH MY GOD!” and also states:This is freaking me OUT! It gets real bright and explodes, then it starts again.)

DISPATCHER: Hello?

CALLER 3: Yeah.

DISPATCHER: I’m sorry, I’ve had about 10 calls since then.

CALLER 3: What did they say?

DISPATCHER: Everybody is saying the same thing. I… the last person is on Brad Street and she is saying itis more towards Stingley…

CALLER 3: I saw it! We both, my wife and I both saw it and it was right outside our window!

DISPATCHER: Right, okay. And your address again sir?

CALLER 3: 166 Lakeview.

DISPATCHER: Okay, all right… that’s allright. I’ve gotten about ten calls here.

CALLER 3: Are they saying its the same thing that I’m saying it is?

DISPATCHER: Yes, yes.

CALLER 3: It looked like a freakin’ alien ship.

DISPATCHER: Right. Yes.

CALLER 3: And it blew up, and it was like a bomb going off.

DISPATCHER: Okay, was it pink?

CALLER 3: It was lights…

DISPATCHER: A lady said it was pink.

CALLER 3: No, it was going to the powerlines… but it was…  it hovered in… it came… I…I sound likeI’m insane right now, I can’t believe I’m saying this! It hovered downover the school and it was spinning lights and flashing,

DISPATCHER: …okay…

CALLER 3: …it came down all the way like over the school and towards my house,

DISPATCHER: …okay…

CALLER 3: …and then it would just go ‘boom’ and the whole all the electricity would go off and this giant flame ball in the sky.

DISPATCHER: Okay, I need to get going and let the officers know, okay?

CALLER 3: Okay.

DISPATCHER: Okay, thank you, bye bye.

END

—

Transcript of police tape by Kenny Young, March 24 2004. The tape seems to have been laid in from multi tracks and the sequence for this transcript has been ‘re-arranged’ from the police tape to reflect “real time” events. On the police tape, Callers 4 and 5 came after Caller 3, when in real time, they were ‘during’ the time frame Caller 3 was ‘on hold.’

Scientific Analysis of the Tree Debris

The following analysis was done by Phyllis Budinger, and Frontier Analysis:

TECHNICAL SERVICE RESPONSE NO.: UT034

Subject: Analysis of Tree Branches which Purportedly Came into Contact with a UFO (Centerville, Ohio,March 6, 2004)

Date: July 11, 2004
Requested By: Bruce M. Forrester, Zephyr Technology

Reported By: P. A. Budinger,Analytical Scientist

Background/Objective: An unusual event happened in Centerville, Ohio at approximately 5:30 a.m.Saturday morning March 6, 2004.  Residents saw a UFO apparently interacting with power lines.  The extent of the interaction was explosive innature, and also involved the burning of tree tops.  Flame and ‘glitter’from the trees were purported to continue for several hours after the event. A detailed account of the UFO’s movements and witness ís descriptions can be found on http://home.fuse.net/ufo The object of this analysis is to analyze the exposed tree branches for any unusual or foreign materials.  Following are photographs of the branches.

Conclusions:

1.) No unusual or foreign materials were detected on the charred and unburned areas of the branches.  The results show normal natural products from trees and normal burn byproducts.  The natural products include primarily celluloidal material, some natural ester, a small amount of secondary amide, and trace amounts of possible natural carboxylic acid salts.   Burning byproducts include carbon,calcium carbonate, calcium phosphate, inorganic nitrate, and organic oxidation products, which are primarily carboxylic acid salts.

2.) It is worth noting that there are no radioactive or fluorescing materials.   It is reassuring to know radioactivity is absent.

3.) The results do not confirm or rule out a UFO as a cause of the burning phenomenon.  An interaction with such unknown craft could have resulted in normal burning byproducts, and may not have left any unusual residues or craft deposits.

Procedure:

Samples: Several charred tree branches from the event were sent.

Numerous infrared spectra were obtained from both burn and unburned areas of the tree branches “as received”.  These were obtained on the Nicolet Avatar 360 spectrometer using the Harrick SplitPea ™  sampling accessory.  Some of the selected sampling areas of a branch are shown in the photograph below.

In addition, infrared spectra were also obtained from solvent extractions from the charred and unburned sections of the branches, as well as a control branch.  Progressively polar solvents were used, i.e. hexane, 1:1 acetone:methanol and water. The extracts were weighed for a quantitative estimate of their amounts.

The branches were also examined with a radiation monitor (SE International’s Radiation Alert ™ Monitor 4) and a UV light (Optical Engineering’s Model 22-UV).

Results:

The results of the individual tests done on the branches follow.  These results are summarized in the conclusionssection of this report.

A spectrum of a white material also is typical of white ash from a fireplace.  The major component is calciumcarbonate, and there is a smaller amount of calcium phosphate.  (The carbon is completely gone because of complete oxidation.)  Following is a spectrum of the branch white material and a reference of white ash from the Budinger fireplace for comparison.

Infrared Spectrum of White Ash on theBranch

Infrared Reference Spectrum of WhiteAsh from Budinger Fireplace

Infrared spectra from unburned areas of the branch show typical celluloidal material and natural ester.  For the most part the spectra of the unburned area compare qualitatively to reference control spectra of aged and new wood. (It should be notedthe aged wood additionally contains some mineral silicate (dirt).) However, due to the differences in wood sources and ages of the controls before data acquisition, the quantitative amounts of the components vary. Following are two spectra from unburned branch areas and reference spectra of an aged piece of wood and live wood for comparison.

The “as received” charred and unburned areas of the branches were examined with a UV lamp for any unusual fluorescing material.  None was detected.  These areas were also scanned with a radiation monitor.  There was nothing detected above backgroundradiation.

Expectedly, more material is extracted from the charred area than the unburned area because of the increase insoluble burn byproducts (oxidized organics).  (See infrared analysisbelow.)  Comparison of the control extract amount to the charred and unburned amounts vary and may be accounted for by the differences in wood types and wood age when the extraction was done.  That is, extractions of the branches were done 20 days after the event, and the control was done the same day it was cut.  However, as the infrared analysis shows below, the control compositionally compares closely to the unburned wood.

Hexane Extracts:

Infrared analysis shows the hexane extracts from the unburned area compare to that of the control.  That is, thesame components are present.  These consist of celluloidal materialand natural ester.   However, the quantitative amounts vary.There is less soluble celluloidal material in the unburned branch area.  Following are the spectra of these two extracts.

The hexane extract from the charred areais expectedly different.  This is because of a chemical change as a result of the burning action.  The infrared spectrum shows long chain natural ester and a trace amount of poly(dimethylsiloxane) contamination. This is a common contaminant and is probably from the aluminum pans usedin the experiment.  There is no longer any celluloidal material. The spectrum follows.

1:1 Acetone:Methanol Extracts:

Infrared spectra of the acetone:methanolextract from the unburned area compare well to that of a control. The same components are detected with very subtle quantitative variations. The spectra show mostly soluble celluloidal material and smaller amounts of natural ester and possibly carboxylic acid salts. The spectra follow.

The spectrum of the acetone:methanol extract from the charred area is different and displays highly oxidized carboxylicacid salts.  These are byproducts of the burning (oxidation). The spectrum follows.

Water Extracts:

Infrared analysis of the water extracts from the unburned area and the control show they contain similar components. The amounts appear to vary.  Identified are celluloidal material,carboxylic acid salts, and secondary amide.  A trace amount of poly(dimethylsiloxane)contamination is found uniquely in the unburned extract.

Infrared analysis of the extract from the charred area shows primarily carboxylic acid salts which are definitely a product of the burning.  The spectrum follows.

The post Explosive Visitation or Uncanny Abnormality? first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post Explosive Visitation or Uncanny Abnormality? appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Subject: UFO Sighting
DATE: Monday morning, January 12, 2004,2:58 a.m.
Location: Yelton St., Amelia, OH (Clermont County)

Summary:

A lighted, disc-shaped object with a hump was seen hovering silently over homes near Amelia, Ohio.  The object, which moved in a bizarre fashion said by witnesses to “drop and stop” near the East Fork vicinity, was sighted by at least three separate persons in Clermont County at 2:58 a.m., early Monday morning, January 12.  Also seen was a shadow that ‘transformed into a ball’ — one person describing a peculiar tannish-brown object, separate from the lighted UFO-which strangely ‘rolled down the side of a house.’ The sighting was first reported by one of the witnesses to the Cincinnati UFO hotline on Monday, investigation of the incident has turned up additional witnesses to the incident.
 

INCIDENT

At 2:58 a.m. on Jan. 12th, 2004, 21 year old student Susan T. (name and phone number on file, deleted for this report) and her neighbor Jeff F. were in Susan’s driveway when they spotted an object high in the sky.  Susan states that the object was hard to describe but said it was disc shaped with a “hump” on top.  Susan said that at one point the object stopped and began to “drop.” She thought it was going to hit the ground.  However, it suddenly stopped and hovered and then it began to drop again.  For several minutes this object “stopped and dropped.”  She finally lost sight of it as it went below roof top level of her house.

Susan went on say that this object must have been “covered in a million lights” and also said there was a red rotating light on the top of the hump and white lights on what she described as the belly or bottom of the object. She claims that the object seemed to turn on its side so that she could see the bottom part. This turning or flipping caused the object to look like it was changing shapes and getting bigger.  It was when the object turned up that the “bottom” was covered in white lights that dimmed then grew brighter and changed patterns.

Susan said that the object was — from her perspective-larger then your thumb at arms length.  She does not know how far away it was but said it may have been over as far as State Route 222. (There are several streets between there; Lumsford and Eiler Lanes.) She said the object may have been in the vicinity of the Phantom Fireworks Factory on Route 125, somewhat to the west of her location.

Susan explained that she felt she was being watched and grew very frightened.  Both she and her neighbor(Jeff F.) sat in the truck and watched this object for over an hour. It was 4:15 a.m. when it finally slowly went down behind her house.

Susan then stated that something very strange happened.  Right after the object went behind her house she saw what appeared to be a “shadow” on her roof that turned into a ball and rolled down the roof.  She said that her neighbor also saw the shadow.

Being very frightened neither person went behind the house to see where the object went.  Susan feels that it did land or almost land.  She also said that they did not see the object leave because she ran in into house after it went below the roof level and did not look anymore.

I asked if there was any adverse reactions by the animals in the area when the object was in view and Susan said that dogs on the other streets were going wild when the object came down close to the ground.

The second witness was then contacted for his comments on the report.  Jeff F., a 45-year old disabled resident of Amelia, states that at 2:58 a.m. on Jan 12th, 2004, he and Susan were sitting in his truck in her driveway when they spotted the object hovering up over behind Susan’s house.  The object was up very high. They watched as this object began to drop very fast.  It then stopped and hovered and then dropped again.  This all happened very quickly.  Jeff F. states that he looked away for a second and the light was back up in the sky in the same spot where they first saw it.  It dropped and stopped again.  This happened two times.  Jeff F. says he does not know how big the object was but it had a slowly rotating red light on top.

I asked if there were other lights and Jeff said that he did not see any other lights nor could he tell the shape. He said they watched this object for an hour while they sat in his truck.

Jeff said this object eventually began to descend behind Susan’s house.  Just as it went out of view a very weird thing happened.  Jeff F. said that a “light tannish brown shadow that turned into a ball about the size of a cantaloupe” rolled down Susan’s roof.

“This happened so fast it was unbelievable,”he said.

When this happened both became frightened and Susan ran in the house.

Both parties told me that there was a garbage truck coming down the street at the time the object was in view but they do not think the garbage man saw the UFO.

INVESTIGATORS COMMENT

Jeff F. and Susan’s stories differ in some aspects.  Both witnesses sounded sincere in their claims. Susan still sounds upset about what she saw and expressed to me that she has received little sleep since her sighting.  I find the incidentwith the “shadow” very curious.  Both people expressed to me that it was “something” other then just a shadow, but “shadow” was the only word they could find to describe it.  It seems that this “shadow”upset both witnesses the most because the object was too far away to cast any reflection on the roof.`

Susan is a 21 year old student at the University of Cincinnati.  She is out of school for the winter butwill be back in school for the spring term.  She is taking courses(30-hours per week) to be become an RN.

45-year old Jeff F. is now disabled but was formerly employed as an industrial engineer.

Susan informed me that she sometimes has trouble sleeping and she and Jeff F. will sit in his truck to talk so as not to wake her family.  That night they had spotted the UFO.

Susan says the object was in the western skies when she first saw it. She says she does not know or could comment on how high the object was, saying she is not very good at judging distances.Jeff also said he could not guess on how high up this object was in darkness.

ADDITIONAL WITNESS

Through various telephone inquires of neighboring residents in the area contact was made with one other possible witness.

A resident from a few blocks away (Eiler Rd) spoke with me by phone (name and phone number on file, withheld from this report) and said that around 3:30 a.m. on Monday morning, January 12, she looked out her window towards the West and saw a bright light in the vicinity of State Route 222.  She did not know how high this objectwas but said it was a very big bright light above the trees. She said that from her perspective, the object was in a westerly direction toward the lake (East Fork).  She could not give a clear estimate of elevation but claimed to have watched this object for a couple of minutes. After it allegedly disappeared she went back to bed.

The time and date of the claimed sighting, plus general location of the alleged object, matches detail furnished by the first two witnesses from Yelton St.

INVESTIGATION

I contacted the Clermont County Sheriff’sDept. at 513-732-2231.  No UFO sightings were reported to them during this time frame.

Next, I contacted the Bethel Police Dept. at 513-734-2256.  No UFO sightings were reported during thistime to them.

Additionally, researcher Kenny young placed a call to the Clermont Sun Newspaper “465 E. Main St., Batavia,Ohio, 513-732-2511.”  He spoke with the editor, Art Hunter. He was told they had not heard of any UFO sightings.

Next, Young contacted the office at East Fork Lake State Park 513-734-4323.  The telephone receptionist,Sandy, said she was completely unfamiliar with UFO sightings around the East Fork State Park vicinity.  She did inquire about the witnesses. She explained that she would pass the information along to the supervisor,others in the office and the park rangers who patrol the lake at night. She took Young’s telephone number and e-mail address and attached them to her report.  Young said if anyone had information about this story to feel free to contact him.

Filed 1/13/04
Donnie Blessing
Southern Ohio State Section Director MUFON 

The post UFO Sighting over Amelia, OH (2004) first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO Sighting over Amelia, OH (2004) appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

On July 11, 2004 at 5:06 p.m., a Knott County, Kentucky resident called the Cincinnati UFO Hotline (513-588-4548) to report a UFO sighting by 3 witnesses from the previous evening, Saturday, July 10th. His name and phone number are on file, deleted from this report for privacy purposes. He wanted to report the sighting and had asked his son go online to lookup a UFO reporting number.

The witness, 57 years old, is now retired but formerly worked with the EPA for 25-years. He said that he was standing outside shortly after dusk and, as darkness set in, stood talking with his wife and a friend on property along Route 550 near Leburn, Kentucky(Knott County). He said that besides himself, there were two other witnesses to the sighting; his wife (49-years old) who stood to his left, and his friend who works for The State of Kentucky as a Mining Inspector (also 49-years old). He said that the other two witnesses were impressed by the sighting as well.

“We were just standing outside talking,”he said, “when all of the sudden there was some kind of flash. This thing caught my eye, and it looked just like a star blew in half.”

The witness said that from his vantage point on property along Route 550 near Leburn, he was standing next to his wife and facing in the direction looking to the northeast. His friend had his back turned but also quickly looked to see the object(s). The witness aid that he couldn’t determine height or angle with exacting specifics,but thought it was situated in the sky at an estimated 70 degree to the northeast and the object itself was fairly high, like a star.

“Something caught my eye, like an implosion,”he said, “and I looked up and there was a flash. I would say the last of the flash part that caught my attention.

“I happened to look up and saw this thing that looked like a star that got real bright and split in two, one went one direction and one went the other direction. The one that went to the left kind of faded away in about 2 or 3 minutes after traveling straight across. The one that went to the right continued on in a sort-of-southerly direction, even somewhat southeast, and after a few minutes it suddenly made a 90-degree turn and came towards us. It started to come my direction where I was observing it from.

“It looked like a just like a star,as best as I could describe it, then after a couple of minutes it faded out, too.”

The witness also said the two objects,traveling in opposite directions, looked identical, resembling two stars in a straight line.

“The right-hand object went toward the east for several minutes and then it appeared as if it changed direction by about a 90-degree turn and it came toward us for 2 or 3-minutes and then it faded out.”

The witness informs that the largest community near his location would be Prestonsberg, Kentucky, about 35-miles away. Hazard, Kentucky is about 25-miles distant. He was unsure of any additional witness, asking if I knew if anything had been reported.

COMMENT

This appears to be an unusual sighting and the witness adds that he is “not a UFO person” and was curious if there were other reports. He remarked that the objects appeared star-like in appearance but could not account for the apparent flight performance.

I inquired if the witness knew of any military air zones near this location where aerial flare-training could be taking place, and he knew of no Military Operation Areas nearby. He said that he was in the military for years and had the ability to recognize flares, stressing that the right-hand object ‘undertook a certain maneuver’during the event. This reported maneuver seems to complicate any pay load or satellite re-entry, meteor/debris or flare explanation.

Filed,
July 11, 2004
Kenny Young

The post UFO Sighting Rt. 550 – Leburn, Kentucky (Knott County) first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO Sighting Rt. 550 – Leburn, Kentucky (Knott County) appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

By E-mail advisement, a 34-year old resident of Lancaster, Ohio has reported a UFO sighting by 3-witnesses.The claimant, a 36-year old friend and his 17-year old son observed the object before a thunderstorm hit the area around 7:30 p.m. on Saturday,August 28, 2004, they observed an unusual object in the skies directly over the city of Lancaster, Ohio.

“This may sound nuts,” the witness wrote,”but right before the storm hit at around 7:30 P.M, I saw something right over the city of Lancaster, no lights at all.

“It looked like a “V” but it did not move up or down, but it did drift from North-East to South-East, AGAINST the wind, before coming to a stop, seeming to stay in place.  It was a VERY dark shape.

“At first I thought it was a parachute,but who in their right mind would jump with a  thunder storm in their face? This object made NO sound at all, and I watched it for about 7 to 8 minutes.”

The 34-year old individual reporting the sighting is married with a 14-year old son and worked as an electrical contractor for 10-years included his full name (which is not divulged in this report, contact info on-file – KY), and also added that the object:”looked at times like it would invert, looking like a rectangle during the rotation, and then look like an upside down “V”.

Through 3 question and answer E-mail sessions with the witness, he said that he was standing on West 5th Avenue and looking east, directly over Lancaster when watching the unusual object.He lost sight of it when the clouds ‘overtook it’ and openly inquired if this object were  a balloon, how it did not move with the wind? Theclaimant also felt that if this object were somehow tethered, it must havebeen situated at Anchor Hocking Glass Factory on about a 1,000 feet ofrope.

The witness was so impressed by the sighting that around 9:30 or 10:00 p.m. of Saturday, August 28, he contacted two law enforcement agencies; The Lancaster City Police and The Fairfield County Sheriff’s Office. Neither agency could supply additional information and had received no reports. The witness also took the step of contacting the Fairfield County Airport in Lancaster, Ohio by E-mail, inquiring if they might have information for him about tethered balloons over this location.He has not yet received a reply from the airport.

“I was thinking about the best way to describe this, when it hit me,” he said. “If  you have a flip open cell phone, open it up until it forms a ‘V’ when  looking at it from the side. Now rotate it , so that the face of it is  facing you, and imagine you cant see the depth of the ‘V’, just the  outline. There is the rectangle. Now rotate it all the way down until it  looks likean upside down ‘V.’

COMMENT

Separately, a series of UFO sighting reports emerged from Lucasville, Ohio (Scioto County) on August 17 and 24th involving the sighting of an unusual triangular shaped object seen in the vicinity of The Ohio Correctional Institute. Thus far there are no additional reports to supplement the Lancaster sighting.

Filed,
August 30, 2004
KENNY YOUNG

The post UFO Sighting near LANCASTER, OH first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO Sighting near LANCASTER, OH appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

The following was written by the late UFO Researcher Kenny Young:

The Norwood Searchlight Incident of 1949, as it has been called, is an outstanding series of 10 visual sightings of a strange aerial object that took place in or near the Norwood, Ohio area from August 19th of 1949 to March 10th of 1950.
The alleged observation of a massive object by searchlight operator Donald R. Berger, and meticulously detailed in his logs, remain one of the more curious events in UFO history.

This case is exceptional not only because of the dramatic event reported, but also because of the caliber of witnesses involved. The series of incidents were said to have been witnessed by civilians, by clergy, by scientists, by police officers and military officials.

Photos were taken on October 23, 1949 by Norwood Police Sgt.Leo Davidson, and 2 reels of 25-ft. motion picture film were kept in the possession of Reverend Gregory Miller, last seen at WCPO Channel 9 TV studios in 1952.

Still frames from the movie film were given to investigator Leonard Stringfield and published in his book “SAUCER POST 3-0 BLUE.” That photo from his book was scanned and enhanced for this report. Using this same photo, an earlier analysis had been made by Dr. Richard Haines.

An additional photo was found in the possession of RAY STANFORD, who states: “This is several generations down from the original16 mm movie film, but it seems to rather clearly show that while the beam was projecting several degrees away from the object, when it got within a certain event horizon of the object, it was simply bent or ‘pulled’ the beam directly into the object, seemingly bending it about26.5 degrees, as measured in the photo plane! This frame has always amazed me since I first saw it in the mid-’50s. Several persons, back then, who had seen the actual movie said that at one time the object seems, indeed, to ‘suck’ the beam squarely into it!

“I have included two versions with special filtration. The second (middle) image makes the dramatic bend of the light beam especially clear and easy to measure (on the top of the beam). The second (last) version seems to show what might be interpreted to be a focus effect of the light within the beam. Note the dark diamond shape (bright in the original) between the object and the place where the beam bends.”

ORWOOD AND PROJECT GRUDGE
Could someone help explain if any reference to the 1949 Norwood Searchlight/UFO incident does or does not appear in Project Grudge files?

The Norwood case involves 10 visual sightings by multiple civilian, clergy, police, scientist and military witnesses over a 7-month duration, facilitated by the use of a powerful searchlight ran by Army Sgt. Donald R. Berger. The first sighting took place during “The Jitney Carnival” of 1949 and witnessed by hundreds The following morning, three local newspapers- The Cincinnati Post, The Cincinnati Enquirer and The Cincinnati Times Star- all had articles regarding ‘strange lights’ and ‘comets seen over the city’ from the previous evening.

There was an explanation for the occurrence, according to one local newspaper. The Albee Theater in nearby Cincinnati, accompanied by the Ss. Peter & Paul Church in Norwood, were operating searchlights. It was said that the hundreds of persons calling newspapers and weather bureau officials were simply observing these searchlight beams ‘bouncing off of clouds.’

Despite this, the sightings began in earnest after 11:00 p.m. (Berger logs indicate that he observed the UFO from 8:15 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.) and continued to flummox Cincinnati residents until 6:30 a.m. the following morning. It seems unlikely searchlights would be operating all night long until daylight, and further still, one weather bureau official recounted his early-morning observation of two objects that looked like “two weather ceiling balloons” that weren’t moving despite a wind speed of 25 to 32-miles per hour.

Even the Berger logs indicate the possible presence of a second searchlight from that evening, whether Berger knew there was another searchlight at work or not. “When I moved the searchlight away, the object continued to glow,” Berger wrote in his 1949 logs that were later kept in the possession of Rev. Gregory Miller until 1954, when he imparted them to UFO investigator Leonard Stringfield.

Meanwhile, during the festival in Norwood, Robert Linn, the managing editor of the Cincinnati Post, along with church pastor Rev. Gregory Miller, were certain that Berger’s searchlight had found and been bouncing off of “some definite object.” They entered into agreement and reported the situation to intelligence officials at Wright Field in nearby Dayton, Ohio.

The August 19th episode is a mass-witness case, reported in all three local newspapers of Cincinnati, Ohio, a city not far south of Dayton, home of the airbase. A possible explanation is publicly toyed with: the deception caused by two searchlight beams strolling the dark skies. It seems as if Grudge folks would have likely been aware of the events at Norwood on August 19, 1949 – either from all the reportage or from the direct report to the airbase itself, by Robert Linn and Rev. Miller. Why does the Norwood Case not factor in to their investigation when, in fact, far ‘lesser’ cases may have been prominently addressed? If Project Grudge had sought to dismiss UFO sightings as psychological phenomena, they had a good case with the Norwood searchlight events at this stage of the situation.

NICAP has published the following on this case, and it is archived here for additional information:

Francis Ridge:
This is one of those older cases that doesn’t show up very often in the literature. And most people really don’t understand what happened in Norwood in August of 1949, or especially in the month of October. This wasn’t a cloud or weather balloon caught in a searchlight. It was much more complicated. The following is from the NICAP UFO Evidence (1964), page 88: 

If you want the full story, you need to read what Leonard Stringfield, himself, reported in his publication, “Inside Saucer Post. . .3-0 Blue.” 

The post Norwood, Ohio Searchlight UFO Incident first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post Norwood, Ohio Searchlight UFO Incident appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.