Date: Saturday, 14 Jan 2006
Animal Reaction Feature:
Around midnight, a woman and her son (16) were at home on their farm. Their dog started barking and a horse in a corral began to whinny and move around its enclosure in an agitated manner. The witnesses thought a stray animal had come into the area.
The 16-year-old looked out his window and saw 4 bright lights in a row to the NW. The lights slowly increased in brilliance, and then began to wane until attaining an orange-red hue before extinguishing. They were estimated to be 90 meters (295 feet) away to the NW and on or near the ground.
Alerted by her son, the mother looked out the front door and saw the paddock across the road was brightly illuminated by a monochromatic white light source. She went outdoors and saw a bright rectangular object that appeared to have four square windows along its side. The structure appeared to move slowly over and around the crest of a hill. The event ended with both mother and son seeing a glow that eventually faded.
Both witnesses reported the lights were so bright that they had after-image effects. There is a reference to “noise” without further explanation [I assume this means sound associated with the object--jw]. No EM effects were reported. Possible traces were found on the ground.
Noise and animal reactions were reported from neighboring properties and independent sightings by factory workers were reported, but no details are given.
The A.P.R.O. Bulletin, April 1978, vol. 26, no. 10, page 4-5, “1977 UFO Landing In Australia.” A copy of this article is attached.
The A.P.R.O. Bulletin, April, 1978, Vol. 26, no. 10, page 4-5:
On May 31st, 1977, UFO Research (N.S.W. Australia) was notified of a possible landing near Orange, which had allegedly taken place only a few days earlier. Bill Chalker spoke with one of the percipients on June 1st, and a field investigation was arranged and conducted on Sunday, June 5th. Chalker (industrial chemist), Anne Browne (clinical psychologist) and Dr. G.T. Stevens made up the UFOR investigation team and were assisted by Orange area investigator, Terry Bishop. The following report is based on that investigation:
On the night of May 26th, 1977 (Thursday) at about midnight, on a farming property about 11 km east of Orange, Mrs. H. was in bed reading a book, when she heard their dog barking and a corralled horse whinnying and stomping around its enclosure in a most agitated manner. Thinking some stray animal or dog had wandered into the area, she was about to get up to investigate, when her 16 year old son, rushed into her bedroom.
He was obviously in a very agitated and panicky state, and exclaimed, “Mum I’ve seen it!” Thinking he had observed the cause of the animal disturbance she said, “What, a big dog?”. “No! A great big light!”
He then described how he too, had heard the agitation of the horse and the dog and had looked directly out his bedroom door. Some 90 meters away in an approximately N.W. direction from the house, he saw a very bright light complex, either on or near the ground. The light source consisted of about 4 bright white lights in a row. The whole thing seemed to slowly increase in brilliance, then upon reaching a brilliant intensity, began to wane in brightness, taking on an orange-red hue just before the illumination was extinguished.
It was at this point, that the boy ran in to alert his mother. She immediately went with him to his bedroom, but could not see anything in the darkness, on the hillside. Mrs. H. went through the house to the front door, from where she was surprised to see that a paddock across the road running in front of their property was brightly illuminated by an apparent monochromatic white light source. Mrs. H. then moved over to the nearby fence, and from there she could make out the apparent source of the illumination. In about a N.N.W. direction, she made out a bright elongated rectangular object which appeared to have about four “square windows” along its side. This whole complex appeared to move slowly over and around the crest of the hill. Mrs. H. ran back inside the house and returned to the fence with her son. All that could be seen now was a bright glow in the same area, but this too eventually disappeared.
Corraborative incidences include the noise, disturbance, noise over neighbouring properties, animal disturbances on other properties, and at least two independent sightings of UFO’s at the same time by local factory shift workers.
When morning came, Mrs. H.’s son went up to the area where he saw the light source on or near the ground. He was looking for shell cartridges (to confirm the unlikely spotlighters hypothesis) or burn marks. He found nothing of this nature and school attendance then required him to give up any further inspection. Later that same morning his mother went up to the spot and started to make a more detailed inspection. She found two unusual indentations, which consisted of circular areas denuded of grass with a covering of very finely graduated soil. Mrs. H. gave up looking any further because of the bitter cold, but she told a friend of the family, who in turn informed UFOR of the incident. We contacted Terry Bishop, our representative in Orange, immediately. During the intervening period it had rained and snowed. Because of this the traces had deteriorated in condition but were still clearly visible. T. Bishop made a preliminary field inspection and confirmed that there were in fact 4 indentations of the type pointed out to him by Mrs. H. They were all about 5 c.m. in diameter and arranged in a trapezoid shape. There were no other apparent effects at the grassed site, both inside and outside of the imprint area. The length of the trapezoids side were 5.3 m., 10.1 m., 4.3 m., and 5.8 m.
The investigators were of the collective opinion that the witnesses were truthful and described the details of the event they witnessed to the best of their ability.
It is of particular interest that both percipients reported after-image effects which reflects the brilliant nature of the light source observed. The boy described only an after-image effect which he felt was normal after exposure to the unknown light source, while his mother described seeing black squares before her eyes when she went indoors (I). Apart from spectroscopic analyses (which revealed nothing untoward) the soil samples from the site (both imprint and control samples) were also subjected to inspection via the thermoluminescence process by Dr. G. Stevens. Overseas scientists have used this process to study the effects of ball lightning on a church steeple and a brick house, atom bombs on roofs, a UFO on soil (Zeller, 1976) and a number of other areas.
The thermoluminescent technique effectively measures the amount of radiation damage in a sample. A major advantage is that (apart from an effect which disappears within a day or so) this radiation damage in quartz – a major component of soil, is relatively stable and old sites can be reinvestigated using this technique. This method is potentially capable of detecting the effects of any ionizing radiation from a UFO and also measuring any heating effects (2).
In the case of the Orange site, superphosphate had been spread about a week previous to the event in question, thereby supplying a natural reference of dosimetery. It was found that if any ionizing radiation was involved the ground would have received less than 100 rad and that any heating involved in forming the cleared patches would have been below 205° C (3).
Because only 4 imprints were extant after the UFO event, we need to compare it closely with the Imprint Catenas compiled by Fred Merrit of CUFOS. His Caten I features irregular 4 sided imprints of which Socorro (1964: 2.9m., 3.6m., 4.5m., 4.0m) is the best known example. The object seen at Orange however does not fit the primary characteristics of his catena, which is based on only 3 cases – “the least compelling of the 5 Catenas”. (4) Australia has a paucity of trapezoid type imprint cases, the only other incident being near the Mount Flora – Dingo road near Nebo, northern Queensland during March, 1975. Its dimensions were 6’8”, 5’6”, 9’ and 7’6”. (5)
Perhaps the Orange case was not a landing as such, but instead 4 remote sampling devices which were extended from the object proper, which would have hovered just above the ground. It would appear that the object’s tenure was quite short and if a landing had taken place with the irregular non-symmetrical arrangements of the prints being due to the sloping site (6) then this fact may have been responsible for the lack of a more remarkable trace (say as compared to the Penrith trace case of April, 1976). (7)
Notes and References:
(1) R. F. Haines ‘Psychophysical and biological aspects of viewing very bright objects’, Proceedings of the 1976 CUFOS Conference (1976 CUFOS), and G. M. Murch’s ‘Visual and Auditory Perception’ (1973).
(2) G. Stevens, ‘Collection of samples in Trace Cases’, ACOS Bulletin, No. II-September, 1977.
(3) G. Stevens, ‘An analysis of an alleged UFO landing site near Orange, N.S.W.’
(4) F. Merritt, ‘A preliminary classification of some reports of UFO’s based on shape
and dimensions of imprint patters’ (1976 CUFOS)
(5) R.A.A.F. Investigation report – personal files (B. Chalker)
(6) In fact the lowest imprint was impressed further into the ground, which seems to
support the hypothesis that more weight was distributed on this imprint than any of the others.
(7) UFOIC Newsletter, No. 49
# # # # #