1

The Levelland Sightings Of 1957 by

Antonio F. Rullán October 18, 1999, revised March 26, 2000

Analysis of the Evidence and Evaluation of

the Ball Lightning Hypothesis

Map of the Levelland area (Courtesy Larry Hatch Map Collection)

Introduction by Mark Cashman

The following document is the most comprehensive study of the famous Levelland vehicle

interference case ever performed, and took two years to complete. It has undergone peer

review through CUFOS and by some members of Project 1947. Tony Rullán has kindly

allowed me to reproduce this as part of my site. I hope you will find it as interesting and

thought-provoking as I have.

Acknowledgments by Antonio Rullán

I could not have conducted this study without the great help and previous work of Mark

Rodeghier (CUFOS), Jan Aldrich, and Loren Gross. Mark Rodeghier and CUFOS provided

me with copies of their extensive file on the Levelland case and all the declassified material

2

from the Air Force Blue Book study of the case. Jan Aldrich provided voluminous amounts

of news-clippings from the Southwest for November of 1957 that provided perspective on the

case and details not found anywhere else. Loren Gross provided his great research summary

on Levelland in his November 1957 books. I also am indebted to Wendy Connors who

provided support and took time to review the final draft. I also want to thank Newell Wright

and A.J. Fowler who gave their time and attention to discuss and review this case 42 years

after their experiences. All errors or faulty logic in this paper are my own.

Table of Contents

1 Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study was to re-evaluate the sightings that took place in Levelland, Texas

42 years ago with the benefit of declassified Air Force files, updated knowledge of ball

lightning, full review of all the literature on this case, and personal interviews with a two of

the participants. While this case has been documented in numerous UFO books, a thorough

analysis of the witnesses, their claims, the investigators, and the pros and cons of the ball

lighting explanation has not been done. Moreover, the story and claims differ depending on

which book or newspaper is read. Thus, there was a need to determine the most reliable

sources and the most likely description of events from the night of November 2-3, 1957. The

study evaluates the likelihood that ball lightning was the cause for these sightings and

summarizes the reasons for rejecting or accepting that hypothesis. The key issues brought up

by the pro-UFO and pro-ball lighting investigators are summarized and discussed.

2 Summary of Levelland Case

In 1957, between the late evening hours of November 2 and the early morning hours of the

3rd, seven independent witnesses near Levelland, Texas saw an oval shaped ball of light

approach their vehicles causing their engines to stop and headlights to shut. The sightings

took place in a 2.5 hour period (from 10:50 PM until 1:15 AM) and was limited to a 10 mile

radius area West, North and East of Levelland. The events lasted from a few seconds to no

more than 5 minutes. Once the ball of light left the scene, all witnesses were able to start their

automobile engines and their headlights went back to normal operation.

Most witnesses were scared about the incident and eventually called the Levelland Police

Department to report the incident. While descriptions of the sighting varied amongst all

witnesses, there was a general consensus that some lighted object was stopping cars and

trucks around Levelland. On the early morning of November 3, there were other witnesses

who saw lights in night sky and flashes of light. While these sightings added to the confusion

and emotion of the evening, they will not be considered in this study. The Levelland

Sightings are defined in this study as only those seven reports where a bright ball of light was

within 500 feet of the witness’ vehicle and led to engine and headlights failure.

On November 4, 1957, the incident at Levelland was reported in most of the newspapers

across the US. Newspapers were dumbfounded as to the nature of the mysterious ball of light

and gave it different names: mysterious object/thing, flying egg, whatnick, and eggnick.

Many newspapers quoted Representative J.T. Rutherford from Odessa, Texas who wanted to

know whether the sightings were the result of an American experiment and sent a telegram to

Air Force officials in Washington asking for answers. It was not until Nov. 5, 1957, that the

3

idea that an extraterrestrial craft caused the Levelland sightings gained publicity in the

newspapers. Most of the newspaper quoted James A. Lee (a NICAP member from Abilene,

TX) as the key proponent of this idea. On Nov. 15, 1957, the Air Force issued a summary

report concluding that the incident was a rare form of lighting called ball lightning. The Air

Force solution to this puzzling case was so controversial that the Air Force had to discuss the

case in a US Congressional briefing on the UFO program on July 15, 1960 . While the case

was solved as far as Blue Book was concerned, for many UFO organizations (NICAP,

APRO, CSI) the case was not closed but instead represented one of the best-documented

cases of a UFO.

3 Literature Survey page 4

3.1 Commentary and Analysis from Pro-UFO Authors

3.2 Commentary and Analysis from Pro-Ball Lightning Authors

4 The Witnesses and the Investigators page 9

4.1 Witness Reliability and Source of their Statements

4.1.1 Newell E. Wright

4.1.2 Pedro Saucedo

4.1.3 Ronald Martin

4.1.4 James D. Long

4.1.5 Jim Wheeler, Jose Alvarez, and Frank D. Williams

4.2 Conclusion on Sources of Evidence and Witnesses

5 Analysis of Levelland Sightings: Searching for Patterns page 18

6 Air Force/Blue Book Investigation and Explanation page 31

7 The Weather

7.1 Weather According to the Air Force

7.2 Weather According to Dr. James. E. McDonald

7.3 Weather According to Newspaper Records

7.4 Weather According to US Weather Service

7.5 Summary and Conclusions on Weather

8 The Extraterrestrial Spacecraft Hypothesis page 39

9 Other Possible Explanations for Levelland Sightings page 40

10 The Ball Lightning Hypothesis page 41

10.1 General Definition of Ball Lightning

10.2 The Reality of Ball Lighting

10.3 Properties of Ball Lightning

10.4 Deviations between Levelland Sighting Descriptions and Ball Lightning Properties

10.5 Fitness of Ball Lightning Hypotheses

11 Conclusion page 56

12 Appendix page 57

12.1 US Weather Bureau - Local Climatological Data (Lubbock-Texas, Nov. 1957)

12.2 US Weather Bureau - Local Daily Precipitation (Levelland-Texas, Nov. 1957)

13 References and 14 Sources and Notes page 62

4

Literature Survey

Commentary and Analysis from Pro-UFO Authors

Many UFO researchers have written about the Levelland UFO sightings in one way or

another. Most authors write about the standard claim: that 7 witnesses had their automobiles’

engines and headlights shut off by a UFO within a 2.5 hour period and within a small area

surrounding Levelland. Each author gives his reason for the importance and merits of the

Levelland case. The section below summarizes what made this case so popular among UFO

researchers.

According to Donald Keyhoe, Director of the National Investigations Committee on Aerial

Phenomena (NICAP) from 1957 to 1969, the reason this case became so popular was that too

many newspapers were taking the sighting reports seriously. The press took the sightings

seriously because five Texas law officers backed the story. Keyhoe believed that had it been

an isolated case, the press would have killed it with ridicule. The press did not kill the story

because there were too many trained observers on record. Keyhoe, however, did not give this

case any exalted importance. He did not believe it was the beginning of the 1957 UFO wave

but the continuation of it. Keyhoe thought the evidence put forward by NICAP was sufficient

to conclude that the UFO at Levelland was an extraterrestrial craft. Overall, Keyhoe

supported this case as evidence for the extraterrestrial hypothesis because there were multiple

independent witnesses, because the claims were backed up by law officers, and because of

the lack of a reasonable explanation for the reported anomalous events.

Dr. J. Allen Hynek, astronomer and former Project Blue Book scientific consultant, thought

the case was significant enough to include it in his book The UFO Experience as the top

Close Encounter of the 2nd Kind (CEII) amongst 23 cases listed. Hynek developed a

Strangeness-Probability Index for the cases he evaluated in order to determine their

worthiness for study. The Levelland case had a Strangeness Index of 5 and a Probability

Index of 8. This rating put it at the top of Hynek’s CEII list. Hynek’s definition of the

Strangeness Index is the number of information bits a report contains, each of which is

difficult to explain in common sense terms. For example, in the Levelland case he found 5

items that he could not explain using common senses. Unfortunately, he did not list these

items. We could guess at them based on Hynek’s list of items difficult to explain:

1. weird looking ball of light (BOL)

2. BOL stops car engine

3. BOL shuts off car headlights\ engine and headlights start fine when BOL leaves

4. BOL appears under intelligent control.

Hynek’s probability rating is a function of assessed credibility of the witnesses. He judges

this by (1) internal consistency of the report, (2) consistency among several reports of same

incident (3) manner in which report was made (4) conviction of reporter and (5) subtle

judgement of “how it all hangs together”. Hynek gave the Levelland case a very high

probability rating of eight out of ten. He gave such a high rating because of the multiple

independent witnesses in this case. Hynek stated “that all seven cases of separate car

disablement and subsequent rapid, automatic recovery after the passage of the strange

5

illuminated craft, occurring within about two hours, could be attributed to coincidence is out

of the statistical universe – if the reports are truly independent”.

As opposed to Keyhoe, Hynek did not conclude that this incident was an extraterrestrial craft.

What Hynek concluded was that the Air Force ball lightning explanation for the cause of the

sightings was not acceptable. Hynek did not believe the ball lighting explanation for two key

reasons: (1) observers at the time of the incident did not report lightning but overcast and

misty weather (2) there is no evidence that ball lightning can stop cars and put out headlights.

These two points are very significant regardless of the number of witnesses who experience

the phenomenon. For Hynek, however, the fact that 7 observers reported similar events,

brought significant credibility to the observed claim. Hynek did not put a lot of weight on the

weird light reports from the 5 law enforcement officers in Levelland because they did not

experience the auto engine and light failure.

Dr. Jacques Vallee also wrote about the Levelland case in Anatomy of a Phenomenon.

Vallee, however, did not analyze the case in detail nor gave it any special importance. For

him, it was another case among the wave of sightings in 1957. He stated that the wave had

been going on for a long time and did not start with Levelland or Sputnik II . It did not

represent anything new to him, since he was very familiar with the UFO landing reports from

France in 1954. Vallee, like Hynek, did not believe the ball lighting explanation for the case.

Vallee wrote in 1965: “the official fairy tale concerning the Levelland case is that the

sensational interpretation of the sightings by the press triggered the series of reports now

known as the 1957 wave.” In Jan 16, 1964, Vallee and Hynek met with Bluebook Officers -

Captain Hector Quintanilla and Sergeant Moody in Chicago to discuss the UFO

Phenomenon. In that meeting, Captain Quintanilla and Sergeant Moody agreed that they

could not explain the Levelland case. An interesting revelation given that Bluebook had

explained the Levelland sightings seven years earlier as Ball Lightning.

Ronald Story also had a high regard for the Levelland case. He called the Levelland case one

of the two best cases on record of electromagnetic effects caused by UFO’s. He included the

case as one of the 10 most baffling cases on record in his book titled Sightings. Story agreed

with Hynek in rejecting the ball lighting hypothesis as the explanation for the Levelland

sightings. Story stated four reasons why the case was so extraordinary and had never been

explained satisfactorily to him:

1. No evidence that ball lighting stops cars and put out headlights

2. Ball lighting preference for dirt roads and paved highways

3. Ball lightning size of 200 ft is not common

4. Six independent witnesses experienced something similar and extraordinary within a

10 mile radius of Levelland

Richard Hall included the Levelland case in his book the UFO Evidence as just one more

case in the UFO wave of November 1957. The case was of importance to Hall because it was

the first series of sightings to be widely publicized in November of 1957 and it had the most

intensive single concentration of UFO sightings. In the book, Walter Webb gave a good

summary of the events at Levelland in November 2-3, 1957. While no analysis of the case

was provided in the book, Richard Hall and Walter Webb made several good points:

They wondered why should reddish elliptical UFOs, which cause cars to stall, suddenly be

reported from one small Texas town.

They pointed out that the witnesses were going about their business when the UFOs intruded

6

upon the scene. There was no evidence that the witnesses were searching the sky or otherwise

expecting to see anything unusual. Their independent reports told a consistent story.

Dr. James E. McDonald was also fascinated by this case. McDonald added the Levelland

case to his list of UFO Cases of Interest mainly because he had personally checked the case

and saw in it characteristics of special interest. McDonald was very disappointed in the

analysis of the case done by Dr. Menzel and the Air Force who explained away the Levelland

sightings as ball lightning and wet ignitions.

McDonald checked the weather data for the night and locale in question. He studied the

weather maps and rainfall data and concluded that a large, high-pressure area was moving

southward over the Texas panhandle. He believed that these weather conditions were not

conducive to lightning of any sort. He checked half a dozen stations in the vicinity and found

that there was not even any rain falling during this period, nor had more than a small amount

fallen hours earlier that day when a cold front passed through. McDonald concluded that the

prevailing anticyclonic conditions in Levelland the night of November 2-3, 1957 almost

categorically ruled out ball lightning . Thus, McDonald concluded that the Levelland case

was not ball lightning and that it was still an unknown. The key reasons McDonald did not

agree with the ball lightning explanation was:

1. He believed that ball lightning had to accompany a thunderstorm, but there was none

reported the night in question

2. He believed that ball lightning seldom exceeds a few feet in diameter, but the

description of the objects was about 200-ft.

McDonald certainly did not believe that ball lightning could form under fair-weather

conditions (free of all thunderstorm activity). He claimed that via some elementary

computations he could show how quantitatively absurd this claim was. Moreover, McDonald

also did not like the wet ignition explanation for the failure of the car engines. He pointed out

the fact that the engines could be re-started just as soon as the object darted off was entirely

inconsistent with wet ignition idea.

The Levelland case was also written up in the American edition of Aime Michel’s Flying

Saucers and the Straight-Line Mystery (Michel, 1958) by Alexander D. Mebane (member of

the Civilian Saucer Intelligence group in New York). Mebane used four arguments to accept

the Levelland sightings as flying saucers:

1. Used the analogy to the French sightings from the Fall of 1954

2. Disagreed with the Air Force explanation that rain and storms led to wet electrical

circuits that shut the auto engines.

3. He wrote: “How the circuits happened to dry out instantly when the ball lightning had

departed was not explained.”

4. Claimed that there were no thunderstorms in the area during the sightings. He quotes

a Levelland weatherman statement in the Levelland Sun-News of November 5, 1957.

5. Complained about the Air Force investigation being too short

Of these four points only point #2 and #3 are valid and will be discussed further in this paper.

The Levelland case was also included in the 1981 CUFOS study on UFO reports involving

vehicle interference (Rodeghier). Rodeghier evaluated 481 UFO reports, which involved

7

vehicle interference. Of these 481 reports, eight came from the Levelland case. In the study,

Rodeghier found 35 statistically significant correlations amongst observed properties of the

electromagnetic (EM) UFO events. He grouped these highly correlated properties into three

Nexus consisting of 3 to 4 properties each. In a nexus, the presence of any one characteristic

implies that the likelihood of the other three occurring is increased.

Nexus I had the following positively correlated characteristics:

presence of light beam

control of the vehicle

physiological effect on witness

chasing of the vehicle

Nexus II had the following positively correlated characteristics:

metallic appearing UFO

UFO that lands

disc-shaped UFO

presence of sound

Nexus III had the following positively correlated characteristics:

movement in a straight trajectory

UFOs that appear as a light

size range under fifteen feet

Rodeghier concluded that UFO reports that fall within Nexus I and II do not represent some

unknown natural phenomenon because in these groupings the UFO is described as metallic

and behaves with intelligence. On the other hand, Rodeghier concluded that Nexus III

contains characteristics, which appear to describe an undiscovered natural phenomenon. The

relevance of Rodeghier’s work to the Levelland case is that the Levelland sightings do not fit

in Nexus I or II (the Nexus groups that most likely describe non-natural phenomena). The

Levelland sightings fit better under the Nexus III category because the Levelland UFOs

moved in straight trajectories and they were described as balls of light. The only

characteristic that does not fit with Nexus III is the size of the reported UFO (between 30 to

200 ft as opposed to Nexus III characteristic of less than 15 ft). The key point here is that the

Levelland sightings do not fit into the EM UFO groupings that are unambiguously strange

and unexplainable. The interpretation of the Levelland sightings is open to a possible natural

phenomenon explanation.

In summary, most pro-UFO authors felt that the Levelland case deserved attention because of

the multiple independent eyewitness testimony and the consistency of the anomalous claims.

Moreover, most of the authors rejected the ball lightning hypothesis because the weather

conditions and the object’s behavior, characteristics, and its effect on the automobiles did not

match what was known about ball lightning. Thus, determining the accuracy of the witness

testimony, understanding their claims and description of the object and its behavior, and

determining the weather conditions are crucial to understanding this case.

8

Commentary and Analysis from Pro-Ball Lightning

Authors

Dr. Donald H. Menzel (Harvard Astronomer and Director of the Harvard College

Observatory) also wrote about the Levelland sightings in his book The World of Flying

Saucers (Menzel, 1963). In the book, he retracts previous statements made to the press in

1957 when he stated that mirages were causing the sightings. He explains that he made these

statements too quickly without having all the evidence at hand. His original statements to the

press (back in Nov. 6, 1957) were:

“The whole thing amounts to another flying saucer scare. They are caused by a layer of

heated air… acting as a lens and forming an image of objects as much as 40 to 50 miles way.

They are nothing more than a mirage. They are prevalent just after nightfall as the heated air

begins to cool off at the ground and they are common in the West where they have clear air.”

As for reports of auto engines stalling, Menzel said, “it would not be surprising that a nervous

foot could stall an engine.”

Six years after this statement, in his 1963 book, Menzel fully supported the ball lightning

explanation for the events of November 2 and 3 and rejected the mirage hypothesis. He states

“in Levelland the night of Nov. 2, conditions were ideal for the formation of ball lightning.

For several days the area had been experiencing freak weather and on the night in question

had been visited by rain, thunderstorms and lightning.” He also states that the month of

November 1957 proved to be the wettest ever recorded in West Texas. However, Menzel

does not include the sources or references for his weather information.

Menzel gives three possible reasons for why the automobiles’ engine died during the ball

lightning sightings:

1. The rain during the evening could have seeped under the hood and soaked the ignition

or dampened the spark plugs

2. The feed line may have been clogged

3. A region of highly rarefied air created by the ball lightning may temporarily have

deprived the engine of oxygen

Explanation #3 is the only one that makes a cause and effect connection between the ball of

light and the car engine. Nevertheless, most of the press reports quoted only the first one

(which did not make a lot of sense given that all cars and trucks started right after the ball of

light left the scene). Menzel also argued against the claim of a new kind of electromagnetic

force that flying saucers use to stop vehicles. He states “there are physical phenomena that

the scientist does not yet understand, but he does know that electrical and magnetic forces do

not and cannot perform all the feats attributed to them by saucer enthusiasts.” Moreover, he

said, “no imaginable single force – electric, magnetic, or gravitational – could possibly have

caused all the effects attributed to saucerdom’s miraculous electromagnetic force. An E-M

field with the postulated powers is as improbable as a force that would lift fallen apples from

the ground and draw them up to reunite with the branches of their parent tree.” For Menzel to

believe that UFO’s have such powers he would have expected the following events to take

place:

9

Thousands of automobiles should have been temporarily disabled in the neighborhood

of every car-stopping UFO.

Hundreds of TV sets should have blurred in the neighborhood of every TV-blurring

UFO

Physical evidence of landing should be found (shrubs crushed, grass scorched, ground

disturbed)

Moonwatch (on alert that week all over the US and Canada) teams should have

detected the objects in the sky

Menzel focused mainly on one witness to the Levelland sightings (Pedro Saucedo). He

claimed that Saucedo saw lightning when he reported the flash of light prior to the UFO.

Saucedo, however, never stated on record that he saw lightning. The only references to the

Levelland case that Menzel used to arrive at his conclusion are two newspaper clippings (El

Paso Times, Nov. 4, 1957 & Denver Post, Nov. 6, 1957) and Aime Michel’s book (Michel,

1958). Based on the references listed on the Levelland chapter, it does not appear that he had

access to the Blue Book files, interviewed any of the witnesses, or had any specific weather

report for the area and time in question.

Edward Ruppelt’s (chief of the Air Force’s Project Blue Book from 1951-1953) opinion of

the Levelland sighting is not clear. He did include the Levelland case on the 2nd edition of

his book The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects in 1959. While he included the case in

his book mainly to summarize popular cases of 1957, he did state that these sightings had a

“new twist” (i.e. the stoppage of automobiles by the UFOs). Nevertheless, he did not

comment whether the Blue Book explanation for the sightings was appropriate or not. He

stated: “according to the best interpretation of the maze of conflicting stories, facts and

rumors about these famous sightings, the only positive fact is that there were scattered storm

clouds across West Texas on the night of Nov. 4, 1957. This was unusual for November and

everyone in the community was just a little edgy”. But later in the same chapter Ruppelt

stated: “The Levelland, Texas sightings were written off as “St. Elmo’s Fire” (parenthesis by

original author)”[10]. Maybe Ruppelt used the term “written off” to suggest that he did not believe the Blue Book explanation. On the other hand, he did believe that there were storms during the sightings (a critical requirement at the time for the ball lightning explanation).

The Witnesses and the Investigators

The Levelland case is entirely dependent on eyewitness testimony. There were no physical

traces on the ground, none of the affected vehicles were examined, and no photographs were

taken. As a result, the witness testimony becomes the only way to evaluate the case.

Unfortunately, many newspapers misquoted the witnesses or embellished the stories.

Moreover, very few eyewitnesses were actually interviewed by the Air Force and Journalists.

In order to determine whether the seven reports were consistent, the source of the report and

the manner in which it was reported must be reliable. In the Levelland case, witness

credibility was not an issue with regard to the fact that something was seen. The Air Force

and the Journalists all agreed that something was seen on the evening of Nov.2-3.

Nevertheless, witness credibility was an issue with regard to the description and details of

what was seen.

10

In order to better judge level of accuracy in each of the seven reports, we must understand

who the witnesses were, their level of training, how the report was made, who interviewed

the witnesses and how the report was documented. Below is a summary of the how testimony

was obtained for each witness and which source is deemed most reliable.

Witness Reliability and Source of their Statement

Newell E. Wright

Newell Wright - 1957

Newell Wright was a 19-year-old freshman student at Texas Tech.University in Lubbock. He

was driving late on Saturday night (Nov. 2) on his way to Levelland for a weekend visit with

his parents. Shortly after midnight (at about 12:05 AM), he witnessed the ball of light and his

car engine stopped. After the event, he went home and went to bed. He did not call the

Levelland Police Department that evening because he did not think much of the event. The

following day (Sunday Nov. 3) he was encouraged by his parents to report the incident to

Sheriff Weir Clem. His parents felt that he should report it because they had read about

similar incidents in the Levelland newspaper and because they knew and trusted Sheriff

Clem. Newell described the incident to Sheriff Clem on Sunday at 1:30 PM. He was

subsequently interviewed by a journalist from the Levelland Daily Sun. He was also

interviewed by the Air Force officer who came to Levelland to investigate on Tuesday

November 5. Newell’s story was also documented in the Texas Tech student newsletter titled

Toreador and 25 years later he was interviewed by a Hockley County News-Press reporter.

The author recently interviewed him to better understand his previous statements.

In summary, Mr. Newell Wright is on record on several sources: Air Intelligence Information

Report , Levelland Daily Sun, and Toreador. In this study, we will consider the Air Force

report as the most accurate because the Blue Book officer’s main purpose was to determine

causation and not to create newsprint. Nevertheless, we compared how key descriptions of

the sighting were reported in each of these sources in order to determine the reliability of the

press at the time (shown below in Table 1). It appears that the description of Mr. Wright’s

sighting on Levelland Daily Sun and the Toreador were very close to the Air Force report.

While there are minor discrepancies on the location of the sighting, the key difference is that

11

the newspapers implied that the object was solid (ie. “image not just a light”, “solid with a

definite form”). Moreover, while the Air Force Report and the Toreador said that the sighting

lasted minutes, the Levelland Daily Sun states more accurately that the Mr. Wright thought it

was minutes. In a recent interview, Mr. Wright said that while it might had seemed minutes at

the time it probably was more like 4 to 5 seconds. The key point here is that witness

testimony is subjective and facts and figures are just rough estimates made after a stressful

event. The same comment can be made about the size of the object. Recently Mr. Wright said

that the glow from the ball of light covered the whole width of the two-lane road. This size

estimate is less than 30 ft (see note below), but back in 1957 he said the object was between

75 and 125 ft wide.

Table 1: Comparison of Three Reports of Newell Wright’s Sighting

Sighting Descriptions Air Intelligence

Information Report

Levelland Daily

Sun Toreador

1. Date of Interview Nov. 5, 1957 Nov. 4, 1957 Nov. 4, 1957

2. Date of Report Nov. 18,1957 Nov. 5, 1957 Nov. 5,1957

3. Investigator/Reporter Sgt. Norman P. Barth Dale Johnson

4. Location On Hwy. 116, 4 mileswest

of Smyer

Near the town of

Smyer

On Route 116, one

mile west of Smyer

5. Event Duration 4 to 5 minutes Thought it was

minutes

~ 5 minutes

6. Weather:

(Clear,Cloudy, Rain,

etc)

Heavy clouds and a light

rain falling

Not Available Night was overcast

7. Description: UFO

Shape

Shaped like a loaf of

bread

Like an egg but

flat on the

bottom

Egg-shaped and flat

on the bottom; solid

with a very definite

form

8. UFO Size: How was it

estimated?

75 to 100 ft long He did

not know how far object

was. Size of a baseball at

arm's length.

~75 ft long but

he did not know

how far object

was

~75 ft long but he

did not know how

far object was

9. UFO Color White with a little

greenish tint

Saw an image

not just a light;

not as bright as

neon

White with a little

greenish tint

In the Air Force report of Mr. Wright’s sighting, he was considered to be a reliable witness. It

is interesting to note that James A. Lee, a NICAP investigator from Abilene, TX, also

interviewed Mr. Wright and described him as the “most important and authentic of all” the

witnesses in the Levelland case . The comment is curious because Mr. Lee concluded on

Nov. 4, 1957 that the sightings were due to “space craft from one of the neighboring planets”

but his best witness never believed in the spaceship theory. Mr. Wright always thought it was

some sort of natural phenomena. After the sighting, he went to bed and did not think much of

it. On Sunday he reported it only because his parents asked him to do so. The Monday after

the sightings, Mr. Wright met a professor of Electrical Engineering at Texas Tech (who he

12

worked for part-time) who explained the sighting as ball lightning. This explanation was

reasonable to Mr. Wright and he has been satisfied with this explanation ever since.16 In a

interview in 1982 he tells the Hockley County News-Press that people did not want him to

say he thought what he saw was something from nature. He said “nobody that ever talked to

me was ever satisfied to hear that (his explanation) because the other was more exciting”.

Pedro Saucedo

Pedro Saucedo - 1957

Pedro Saucedo was a 30-year-old farm hand and part time barber from Levelland. He was the

first witness to call the Levelland Police Department (PD) on the Saturday evening of

November 2, 1957. Saucedo had his sighting on Hwy. 116 about 4 miles west of Levelland

near the Pettit Community. After the sighting, he drove towards Whiteface and made the call

to the Levelland PD. Mr. Saucedo talked to A.J. Fowler who was the officer working the

night shift at the Levelland police dispatch. The Saucedo sighting was the only vehicle

interference case that evening that had two witnesses. A friend of his, Joe Salaz, also

witnessed the event. Nevertheless, nobody ever interviewed Mr. Salaz to confirm the story.

Saucedo returned to the Levelland PD the following day (Nov. 3, 1957) in order to give a

more complete report. Saucedo gave a complete statement of his sighting to Officer Shelby

Hall and he later talked at length with a Lubbock Avalanche Journal reporter named Bill

Wilkerson. On Tuesday Nov. 5, the Air Force officer who came to investigate the Levelland

sightings interviewed Mr. Saucedo. Thus, there are two documented sources of what Mr.

Saucedo saw on the evening of Nov. 2, 1957: the Air Intelligence Information Report and the

Avalanche Journal report made by Mr. Wilkerson.

To determine if there were any discrepancies between the Saucedo story reported by the Air

Force and the story reported in the newspapers, we selected a few key descriptors of the event

and compared them for each report.

13

This comparison is shown Table 2 below.

Sighting Descriptions Air Intelligence

Information Report

Lubbock Avalanche Journal

1. Date of Interview. Nov. 5, 1957 Nov. 3, 1957

2. Date of Report Nov. 18, 1957 Nov. 4, 1957

3. Investigator/Reporter Sgt. Norman P. Barth Bill Wilkerson

4. First Thing Noticed Saw a large flame in the

West

Flash of light in a field to his right

5. Sound None Reported Sounded like thunder

6. Physical Effects Felt heat Felt rush of wind and truck rocked

from the blast. Felt a lot of heat

7. Location On Hwy. 116, 4 miles

west of Levelland

On Hwy. 116, 4 miles west of

Levelland

8. Event Duration: 2 to 3 minutes None Reported

9. Description: UFO

Shape

Shaped like a torpedo Torpedo shaped orlike a rocket but

much larger

The are three slight discrepancies in the two statements. First, the Air Force does not mention

any sound heard during the Saucedo sighting, while the Avalanche Journal reported that it

sounded like thunder. Second, the Air Force reports that the sighting lasted 2 to 3 minutes

while the Avalanche Journal did not mention time. The fact that the object described by Mr.

Saucedo flew past him very fast (like a rocket) implies that it could not have been minutes.

Thirdly, the air force report does not mention that Saucedo’s truck rocked from the blast

while Wilkerson’s report does mention this.

Mr. Saucedo told the Air Force investigator (Sgt. Barth) that he thought the object was an

electronically controlled rocket. The Air Force, however, considered Mr. Saucedo not reliable

and to be below average intelligence. It is interesting to note that the Air Force never stated in

its report that Mr. Saucedo was a Korean War veteran but the Lubbock Avalanche Journal did

report it. According to A.J. Fowler, the Levelland police officer that took Saucedo’s call on

that Saturday evening, Mr. Saucedo did not speak very good English and it was difficult to

understand him. This might be the reason why the Air Force investigator did not think much

of Mr. Saucedo. Moreover, in his Air Intelligence report Sgt. Barth wrote that Mr. Saucedo

“had no concept of direction and was conflicting in his answers.”

14

Ronald Martin

Ronald Martin - 1957

Ronald Martin was an 18-year-old truck driver who happens to have been in Levelland at the

time of the sightings. While Loren Gross writes that he was staying at the Padgett Hotel in

Levelland , nobody was able to determine where he was from. Ronald Martin never called

A.J. Fowler on the evening of his sighting (Nov. 3, 1957 at 12:45 AM). Martin was the 2nd

witness who showed up at the Levelland Police Station the day after the incident (Nov. 3,

1957). At the Levelland Police Station he gave a report to Officer Shelby Hall. Moreover, the

Lubbock Avalanche Journal reporter, Bill Wilkerson, was able to interview Mr. Martin on

Nov. 3. Besides interviewing the witness in person, the Avalanche Journal was also able to

photograph Mr. Martin and showed his picture on the Lubbock Morning Avalanche of Nov.

4, 1957. The Air Force officer who showed up on Nov. 5 was not able to locate Mr. Martin

and concluded in a memo to file that “contrary to newspaper reports, source (Ronald Martin)

did not live in Levelland ”. Therefore, the only good source of information for the Ronald

Martin story comes from the Lubbock Avalanche Journal report. This story was subsequently

sent via Associated Press wire to numerous papers across the country.

According to Civilian Saucer Intelligence (CSI), there was a probable hoax in the Levelland

case . CSI speculated that the unreliable witness was Ronald Martin based on the fact that he

reported the sighting the day after. CSI quotes a press report stating that “an unidentified

employer said the facts simply would not have allowed one of the local witnesses to be where

he was under the circumstances described.” The Levelland Daily Sun claimed the discovery

that at least one of the dramatic sightings appeared to be of the imaginary variety . However,

they did not identify the witness. As a result, we have to withhold judgement on Mr. Martin.

He is one of the few who did come back the afternoon following the sightings and

interviewed with newspaper reporters. By then, he had already heard the news of the

sightings and it is possible that he embellished the story. Martin’s story, however, is more

reliable than that of other witnesses who were not interviewed and who just reported the

sightings to A.J. Fowler.

15

James D. Long

James D. Long was a truck driver from Waco who, like Ronald Martin, was driving on the

outskirts of Levelland in the early morning hours of Sunday, Nov. 3, 1957. Right after his

sighting, he called the Levelland Police Department and talked to A.J. Fowler to report the

sighting. Nevertheless, Sheriff Weir Clem is the one who is quoted in most of the newspaper

stories that mention Long’s sighting story. While Sheriff Weir Clem was quoted in the El

Paso Times as saying that he talked to Mr. Long, this quote is doubtful.

In a recent interview with A.J. Fowler, A.J. said that he talked to a negro man who called on

the early hours of Nov. 3 to report a sighting and car stoppage. While A.J.’s description of the

man’s sighting is different than the one reported 42 years earlier, this man must have been

James D. Long because there was only one negro man quoted on the whole Levelland case.

Moreover, Long’s sighting happened at 1:15 AM, which is only 15 minutes earlier than

Sheriff Clem sighting of a streak of light. It is difficult to have Mr. Long calling Mr. Clem

within a 15-minute period when both of them were on the outskirts of Levelland. It is more

likely to conclude that Mr. Long called the Levelland PD and talked to A.J. Fowler, who then

communicated the news to Sheriff Clem via radio.

No newspaper reporter or Air Force investigator claimed to have talked to Mr. Long. It was

presumed that Mr. Long continued to his home in Waco after the incident and there was no

further follow-up interview. As a result, the descriptions available about Mr. Long’s sighting

are based on what Sheriff Clem told the press on November 3 and 4 and on what Officer

Fowler told the press on November 3.

A.J. Fowler is the only person who is on record talking to Mr. Long. A.J. Fowler told the

author that George Dolan, from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, was the only reporter who

called him the day after the sightings on Sunday, November 3, shortly before noon . He also

recalls talking later to the local newspaper (Levelland Daily Sun) but does not recall talking

to anybody from the Lubbock Avalanche Journal. Nevertheless, no full-length interview of

Mr. Long took place.

In conclusion, if we rely on Sheriff Clem’s description of James Long’s sighting then we are

relying on third hand information: Long told Fowler, Fowler told Clem and Clem told the

Lubbock Avalanche Journal reporter. If we rely on what A.J. Fowler told the Fort Worth Star

Telegram, then we minimize the potential for error. Nevertheless, the Star Telegram account

is still second hand information. As a result, the quality of the details in the Long story is not

the most reliable.

Jim Wheeler, Jose Alvarez, and Frank D. Williams

Jim Wheeler, Jose Alvarez, and Frank D. Williams also called the Levelland Police

Department to report similar sightings and vehicle interferences. According to the Fort Worth

Star-Telegram, Wheeler and Williams had their sighting north (8 and 4 miles) of Levelland

on Route 51 at 11:50 PM and 12:15 AM respectively. Alvarez had his sighting at midnight

about 14 miles east of Levelland on Highway 116. There is very little information available

on these three independent witnesses. Jim Wheeler and Jose Alvarez were supposedly from

Levelland while Frank Williams was from Kermit.

16

On November 4, the Levelland police searched for Wheeler and Alvarez but were unable to

locate them. Sheriff Clem asked Winkler County Sheriff L.B. Eddins to search there for

Frank Williams. Sheriff Eddins said that he “turned Kermit upside down” and even had an

appeal broadcast on the Kermit radio station but was unable to find Williams. Neither

newspaper reporters nor the Air Force investigator ever interviewed these three witnesses. As

a result, the story that Wheeler, Alvarez, and Williams told was only available via whatever

A.J. Fowler wrote on the Levelland police records on the evening of November 2 and

whatever Officer Fowler recalled and told the press.

In October of 1998, the author contacted the Levelland Police Department and asked the

Chief of Police whether they had kept any records going back to 1957. The Chief of Police

said that there were no records in Levelland prior to 1978. Given the lack of primary

interviews available, the most reliable information available on the Wheeler, Alvarez, and

Williams stories is the report that George Dolan wrote on the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on

November 4 supplemented with reports from the Levelland Daily Sun and Associated Press

wires from Levelland.

Conclusion on Sources of Evidence and Witnesses

Of the seven Levelland witnesses who reported a ball of light that shut down their vehicles,

only three of them were interviewed and questioned by investigators. Of these three, only two

were interviewed by the Air Force. Newspaper reporters were also able to document these

three witnesses. The reports of the remaining four witnesses were secondary reports. The

newspaper reporters obtained their stories on these other 4 witnesses by interviewing Sheriff

Clem and Officer Fowler. As a result, there is a lack of consistent data amongst the reports, a

lack of consistent investigation procedure, and a lack of details on four of the seven reports.

Nevertheless, there is enough data available for analysis.

We can analyze the data and draw conclusions from it as long as we take into account its

source of origin. One way of ranking the level of accuracy in the reports is by using the

Information Quality Index proposed by MUFON. This Index (with a value between zero and

one) indicates the relative strength that a report has for analysis based on how it was

acquired. MUFON’s criteria for indexing the quality of the information is based on the type

of investigation conducted (direct or indirect), the time spent interviewing the witness and the

level and source documentation. The ranking classification is shown below in Table 3.

Type of Investigation Level of Investigation Time/Length Index

Direct Investigation

At the Site >= 2 hours 1.0

At the Site < 2 hours 0.9

Interview Person to Person >= 1 hour 0.9

Interview Person to Person < 1 hour 0.8

By Telephone >=1/2 hour 0.7

By Telephone <=1/2 hour 0.6

Indirect Investigation

Questionnaire with Follow-up Extensive 0.7

Questionnaire with Follow-up Brief 0.6

Letter with Follow-up Extensive 0.6

17

Letter with Follow-up Brief 0.5

Questionnaire 0.6

Letter/Narrative >= 1 page 0.4

Letter/Narrative < 1 page 0.3

Others

Newspaper >= 500 words 0.2

Newspaper < 500 words 0.1

Radio/TV 0.1

Witness Relative 0.1

Verbal/Rumor 0.0

Based on the level of investigation and reporting done on the seven Levelland witnesses, we

rated the level of accuracy using the MUFON’s Information Quality Index. We also rated the

level of Accuracy of the information using the author’s subjective levels (Low, Medium and

High). The author’s criteria for accuracy of data is shown below:

High: Witness was interviewed in person; a full record of witness testimony is

available; witness was questioned thoroughly by Air Force investigator

Medium: Witness was interviewed in person; the witness report was documented but

only in newspapers; no formal Air Force investigation took place

Low: Witness was not interviewed in person; witness was not interviewed by an

investigator or journalist; no record of witness testimony is available

The resulting Information Quality Index and the author’s own subjective rating are shown

below in Table 4. The Information Quality Index given to Long, Wheeler, Alvarez and

Williams is zero because nobody interviewed them and wrote a report. The source of

information for their sightings was based on a verbal conversation via phone with A.J.

Fowler. No report or record of these sightings was made. A.J. Fowler gave the details of these

sightings to the press via another phone call. Thus, these witnesses were not really

investigated (directly or indirectly). Their reports were obtained verbally.

Table 4: Subjective Rating of Accuracy of Witness Report

Witness InformationQuality

Index

Level of

Accuracy in

Report

Type of Investigation

Pedro Saucedo 0.8 High Interviewed in person by Air Force

officer and Avalanche Journal

Reporter

Newell Wright 0.8 High Interviewed in person by Air Force

officer and Avalanche Journal

reporter

Ronald Martin 0.8 Medium Interviewed in person by

Avalanche Journal reporter

James Long 0.0 Low Talked to Officer A.J.Fowler via

phone; A.J. then told reporters

18

Jim Wheeler 0.0 Low Talked to Officer A.J.Fowler via

phone; A.J. then told reporters

Jose Alvarez 0.0 Low Talked to Officer A.J.Fowler via

phone; A.J. then told reporters

FrankWilliams 0.0 Low Talked to Officer A.J.Fowler via

phone; A.J. then told reporters

Quality of Information is different that reliability of witness. In the Levelland case, most

witnesses were credible and truly experienced something that they never saw before. The

issue is not whether they saw a ball of light in sky in the early morning hours of Nov. 3 1957,

but the details of what they saw. It is the details that will help determine and or explain what

they saw. Thus Quality of Information is deemed more important than witness reliability.

Witness Reliability is usually estimated using parameters like age, occupation, and education.

In this study, however, source of information at the time of the sightings is deemed more

important than a potentially biased Witness Reliability Index.

A key point to make with regard to witness reliability is that during and after the sightings,

neither the Air Force, Sheriff Clem, nor Officer A.J. Fowler doubted that the witnesses saw

something and that their vehicles were stopped. Even today, A.J. Fowler says that all the

witnesses who called and talked to him were credible, scared, and did see something that

night. The issue of reliability of the report has only to do with how accurate the report was

made and how well documented was the sighting description from each witness. It is the

details of the description of the phenomena seen that will help the most in finding a solution

to the mystery.

Searching for Patterns

The seven witnesses who reported vehicle interference told their stories to different people

via different mechanisms. As a result, the seven stories vary in depth of information,

accuracy, and quality. In order to minimize error in the analysis, we limited sources of

information to those reports and/or newspapers that had access to the key witnesses. For

example, newspaper references were limited to the Lubbock Avalanche Journal, Levelland

Daily Sun News, and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram because we know their reporters actually

interviewed key witnesses (Pedro Saucedo, Newell Wright, Ronald Martin) and key

participants in the event (A.J. Fowler, Weir Clem). Part of the witnesses' stories were

retrieved from other newspapers when more details were available in those papers but

missing in the Lubbock/Levelland/Fort Worth papers. However, out of town newspapers

(with the exception of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram) that were not quoting the Associated

Press wires from Levelland, tended not be as accurate as the Lubbock and Levelland papers.

The report from the Air Force investigation was also a key source for the details of the story

of Pedro Saucedo and Newell Wright.

Unfortunately, the stories of some witnesses, who just called the Levelland Police

Department and talked to A.J. Fowler and were not fully interviewed by the Air Force

investigator or a newspaper reporter, are lacking many details that are impossible to

determine 42 years later. Even when the witnesses are still alive, the details of the story are

not reliable. Thus the best we can do is analyze the best data available at the time.

19

Table 5 summarizes the key elements of the Levelland sighting story for the seven witnesses.

The witnesses are listed in the chronological order of the sightings. Twenty-one elements of

the story were tabulated ranging from time and place of sightings to details of the actual

sighting. When data was not available, the table cell was left blank or indicated not reported.

Of the 21 elements shown in Table 5, ten describe the object's behavior and properties and

the other eleven describe the witness, his behavior, and the source of information. The ten

properties selected to describe the object sighted are shown below:

Event Duration

Shape

Size

Color

Type of Motion

Direction

Distance

Type of Vehicle Interference

Sound

Physical and Physiological Effect

Review of the descriptions given by the seven witnesses (as shown in Table 5) indicates that

not one report was identical to another in all these 10 properties. The only generalization that

can be made is that seven independent witnesses (while driving within a 10 miles radius of

Levelland and within a 2.5-hour period) ran into a light source that shut down their car's

engine and headlights. Then when the light source left the scene, the car's engine and

headlights worked normally.

Table 5: Descriptions and Key Elements of the Seven Levelland Vehicle Interference

Cases

Witness Pedro

Saucedo

Jim

Wheeler

Jose

Alvarez

Newel

l E.

Wrigh

t

Frank

D.Willia

ms

Ronald

Martin

James D.

Long

Date 11/2/57 11/2/57 11/3/57 11/3/5

7

11/3/57 11/3/57 11/3/57

Location On

Highway

116; about

4 miles

west of

Levelland

near the

Pettit

Community

. Afterward

s he drove

towards

Whiteface.

At the

intersecti

on of

Highway

51 and a

farm

road

eight

miles

North of

Levellan

d or on

Hwy. 11

6 about

4 miles

east of

Levellan

d near

Lubbock

Highway

or on

Route 51

near

Whitharr

al; 10

miles

north and

slightly

9

miles

East of

Levell

and on

Route

116.

One

mile

west

of

Smyer

Four

miles

north of

Levellan

d at the

intersecti

on of

Route 51

and a dirt

road or

11 miles

north of

Levellan

d on

5 miles

West of

Levellan

d on

Hwy.

116

5 miles

Northwes

t of

Levelland

on the

Oklahom

a Flats

farm road

20

4 miles

East of

Levellan

d[39]

east of

Levellan

d

Route 51

near

Whitharr

al[41]

Time 10:50 PM 11:50

PM or

12:00

12:00

AM

12:05

AM

12:15

AM

12:45

AM

1:15 AM

or 1:30

AM

Witness

Age

30 N.A. N.A. 19 N.A. 18 N.A.

Witness

Occupati

on

Farm Hand

/part time

barber/

Korean War

Veteran

from

Levelland

Man

from

Levellan

d

Texas

Tech.

Fresh

man

Univer

sity

studen

t from

Levell

and

Man

from

Kermit

Truck

driver

from

Levellan

d

Negro

truck

driver

from

Waco

Other

Witnesse

s

Joe Salaz None None None None None None

Event

Duration

:

2 to 3

minutes

~ 4

minute

s

~ 15

minutes

Descripti

on: UF

O Shape

Torpedo

shape or

like a rocket

egg-

shaped

thing

sitting on

the road

Not

Reported

Oval

shape,

flat on

the

botto

m

Shape

d like

a loaf

of

bread

object

was

sitting on

the road

Round in

shape

Big ball

of fire

Round as

a ball

Oval

shaped

Brilliant

egg-

shaped

mass

UFO

Size:

How was

it

estimate

d?

About the

size of an

airplane

Larger than

a torpedo or

rocket

200 ft long

and 6 ft

wide

200 ft

long

Not

reported

75 to

125 ft

long

He did

not

know

how

far

object

was

Not

reported

As wide

as the

paved

portion

of Hwy.

About

the size

of two

cars

200 ft

long

UFO

Color:

Blue with

yellow

Brightly

lit like

Not

reported

White

with a

Not

reported;

Changed

color to

Glowed

intermitte

21

flame

coming out

of the rear

and white

smoke

surrounding

the flame

neon

lights.

Brilliant

light It

was so

bright it

lighted

up the

whole

area.

little

greeni

sh tint

light was

pulsating

on and

off

bluish-

green

when it

set on

Hwy. Th

en

changed

to an

orange

fireball

again

when it

rose

straight

up &

disappear

ed.

ntly like

neon sign

UFO

Action:

UFO rose

up out of a

field and

started

toward the

truck

picking up

speed. Whe

n it got near

the truck,

the lights

went out

and motor

died. Objec

t was about

200 ft off

the ground

and went

directly

over truck.

It was

just

sitting

there, all

lit up. It

was light

up with

neon

lights.

Thing

was

circling

cotton

field, just

above the

ground

on one of

the

circles,

the

Thing’s

lights

went

out. It

just

disappear

ed[42]

Object

rose

from

the

groun

d and

when

witnes

s

looked

throug

h the

winds

hield,

the

object

was

gone.

Object

left

groun

d

almost

straigh

t up

and

disapp

eared

from

view

in a

split

instant

Object

was

siting at

the

intersecti

on of the

Route 51

and a dirt

road. W

hen

witness

got out

of his

car, then

the

object

rose

swiftly to

about

200-ft

and its

light

went out

and it

disappear

ed.

big ball

of fire

dropped

on the

highway

in front

of his

truck

Object

was on

ground

on road.

22

.

Directio

n

Moving

East to

Levelland

UFO

rose into

sky and

its light

blinked

out

Circling

field then

light

went out

and

disappear

ed.

Object

rose

almost

straigh

t up

and a

little

to the

north,

at a

terrific

speed.

Within

second

s it

was

out of

sight.

It

disapp

eared

almost

instant

ly.

rose up

and

disappear

ed

Rose

straight

up and

disappear

ed

Object

rose

straight

up and

then

hovered

about 200

ft in the

air and

then it

turned its

light off.

Distance

to UFO:

(How

was it

determin

ed)

200 ft over

truck

Could

not

determ

ine

distan

ce to

UFO

Saw big

ball of

fire

hovering

in the

sky about

a mile

and a

half

ahead of

him. The

thing

dropped

down

and

landed

on the

road

ahead

some 300

to 400 ft

away.

He got

out of his

car about

200 ft

away to

investigat

e but

when he

did, it

took off

with a

roar

straight

up into

sky.

Type of

Vehicle

Interfere

lights on

truck went

out and

Engine

died and

headlight

Engine

died and

headlight

Amme

ter

began

Engine

died and

headlight

Truck

engine

died and

When the

UFO lit

up, his

23

nce:

(Effects

on

Engine,

Radio

and

Lights)

motor died

when object

got near

truck

s went

out

s went

out

jumpi

ng,

then

motor

gradua

lly

died,

then

the

lights

and

radio

went

out

s went

out.

Every

time the

pulsating

light

from the

UFO

came on,

his car

light and

motor

would go

off.[43]

lights

went out

truck

stalled

and the

lights

went out

EM

Effects

after

UFO

Left

Headlights

went on by

themselves

and

Truck

started fine

after

Saucedo

turned the

key in the

ignition.

When

witness

started to

get out of

his car,

the UFO

rose

abruptly.

At a

height of

about

200-ft,

UFO

lights

went off,

and car

lights

went

back on.

When the

Thing

disappear

ed, the

car lights

went

back on,

and

witness

started

the motor

normally.

After

object

left,

the car

started

norma

lly

Not

reported,

but the

fact that

the

witness

drove on

after the

sighting

to a

payphon

e implies

that car

lights

and

engine

went

back to

normal.

Truck’s

headlight

s came

back on

and the

truck’s

engine

started

normally

Engine

started

and light

came on

when

object got

about 200

ft high.

Type of

Sound

Emitted

by UFO:

great sound;

sounded

like thunder

and rush of

wind

No sound

was

Reported

No sound

was

Reported

No

sound

was

Report

ed

sounded

like

thunder

when it

took off

No sound

was

Reported

Sounded

like a big

clap of

thunder,

as it

settled to

the

ground

and again

as it

seemed

to take

off. Too

k off with

a roar

Physical Witness felt None None None None None None

24

and

Physiolo

gical

Effects

rush of

wind that

rocked the

truck; felt

lots of Heat

Reported Reported Report

ed

Reported reported Reported

What

brought

attention

to UFO?

First saw a

flash of

light in a

field to the

right. Then

object rose

up out of

the field

and started

toward the

truck

pickup us

speed.

Car

engine

and

lights

sudde

nly

quit

worki

ng. H

e got

out to

investi

gate,

but

could

find

nothin

g

wrong.

As he

slamm

ed the

hood

and

turned

around

he

sudde

nly

saw

the

object

on the

Hwy.

up

ahead.

Object

was

sitting in

the

middle of

the road

ahead of

him.

Driving

truck on

highway

when

suddenly

a ball of

fire drops

on the

highway

in front

of his

truck

He saw

the object

resting in

the

middle of

the

highway

with its

light

off. Whe

n he got

right up

to it, its

light

went on

and his

truck

lights and

motor

went

off. Othe

r reports

say that

his truck

stalled as

he neared

a bright

object

sitting on

the

road.[44]

What

was the

witness

doing

before

UFO

showed

up?

Driving to

Gerald

Reding

Farm near

the Pettit

Community

Drivin

g back

home

to

Levell

and

from

Texas

Tech.

Driving

truck

towards

Levellan

d

He had

just left

Levelland

on a run

to a

destinatio

n east of

town.

25

colleg

e in

Lubbo

ck

Who

Intervie

wed

Witness?

Officer A.J.

Fowler via

Phone;

Officer

Shelby Hall

at Police

Station; Bill

Wilkerson

(LAJ

Reporter)

Witness

called

Levellan

d Police

and

talked to

A.J.

Fowler

Witness

called

Levellan

d Police

and

talked to

A.J.

Fowler

Sheriff

Weir

Clem;

Dale

Johnso

n

(Torea

dor

Report

er)

Witness

called

Levellan

d Police

and

talked to

A.J.

Fowler

Called

Levellan

d Police

and

talked to

Officer

Shelby

Hall; Bill

Wilkerso

n (LAJ

Reporter)

Witness

called

Levelland

Police

and

talked to

A.J.

Fowler

Key

Source

of

Informat

ion

Lubbock

Morning

Avalanche

11/4/57;

Levelland

AP; Air

Intelligence

Information

Report,

11/18/57

Fort

Worth

Star

Telegram

, 11/4/57;

Lubbock

Morning

Avalanch

e

11/4/57;

Associat

ed Press,

Levellan

d, 11/4/5

7

Fort

Worth

Star

Telegram

, 11/4/57;

Lubbock

Morning

Avalanch

e

11/4/57;

Associat

ed Press,

Levellan

d, 11/4/5

7

Torea

dor

11/5/5

7

Air

Intelli

gence

Inform

ation

Report

,

11/18/

57

Fort

Worth

Star

Telegram

, 11/4/57;

Lubbock

Morning

Avalanch

e

11/4/57;

Associat

ed Press,

Levellan

d, 11/4/5

7

Lubbock

Morning

Avalanch

e

11/4/57;

Associat

ed Press,

Levellan

d, 11/4/5

7

Associate

d Press,

Levelland

, 11/4/57

; Fort

Worth

Star

Telegram

, 11/4/57

To better compare the descriptions of the light source for each witness, we created radar

diagrams using eight of the properties listed above. The duration of the event and the distance

to the light were not included in the diagram because these estimates (made by the eyewitness

after the event) are typically very unreliable. The eight properties selected tend to be easier to

remember by the witness and are better descriptors of what was actually observed.

26

The criteria used to differentiate each property according to the witness' description are

shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Criteria and Scale used to Differentiate Witness Description of Levelland

Sighting

Criteria/S

cale

Shape Size Color Action Motion Light

Chan

ges

Sound Physi

cal

Effect

s

1.00

Egg/Ov

al

150-

200 ft

White Hover (or

Still) &

Move

Vertica

l &

Horizo

ntal

Blinki

ng

on/off

Sound Heat

and

Wind

0.75

Loaf of

Bread

100-

150 ft

Blue Vertica

l

Heat

only

0.50

Round/

Ball

50-100

ft

Yellow/Or

ange

Move

Continuo

usly

Horizo

ntal

Color

Chang

es

Wind

only

0.25

Torpedo <50 ft Red Circula

r

Other

0.00

Not

Availab

le

Not

Availa

ble

Not

Available

Hovering

or Sitting

Still

Not

Availab

le

No

chang

es

Repor

ted

No

Sound

Repor

ted

None

Repor

ted

While this criterion is arbitrary, we believe it is useful for searching for patterns. The main

purpose of generating radar diagrams is to see visually how similar descriptions of the sighted

object are from one witness to another. Moreover, this analysis also helps to determine

whether descriptions from witnesses who gave more detailed and higher quality reports were

more similar to each other than descriptions from witnesses whose reports were less reliable.

The metrics assigned to each witness report is shown in Table 7.

Table 7: Metrics Assigned to Witness Descriptions

Criteria Pedro

Saucedo

Newell

Wright

Ronald

Martin

James

Long

Jim

Wheeler

Jose

Alvarez

Frank

Williams

Shape 0.25 0.75 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00

Size 1.00 0.25 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00

Color 0.75 1.00 0.50 0.00? 1.00? 0.00 0.00

Action 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00

Motion 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.25 0.75

Light

Changes

0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

Sound 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

Physical

Effects

1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

27

28

29

30

Summary of Radar Figures

For the seven eyewitness reports, none of the radar figures were identical. The descriptions

from the 3 witnesses with the highest quality reports (Pedro Saucedo, Newell Wright, and

Ronald Martin; Figure 1, 2 and 3 respectively) were also different. Shapes described by these

witnesses were torpedo, loaf of bread, and ball. Sizes ranged from 200 ft to width of road (<

30 ft). Colors described were blue, white, and orange. Motion and action also varied. Of

these three witnesses, only Saucedo heard any sound and felt heat and wind. Of these three

witnesses, only Martin saw a change of light color from orange to bluish-green and back to

orange. While overall these three witnesses experienced something similar, their descriptions

of the light source were very different. A blue torpedo shaped light moving horizontally over

a truck and emitting sound and heat appears to be a different phenomenon than (1) a white

“loaf of bread” light hovering still over the road without any sound nor heat and (2) a round

orange ball that drops vertically onto the road and changes color to bluish-

green. Nevertheless, of the best-documented cases, the Wright and Martin cases are the most

similar. Besides slight variations in shape and size estimates, the main discrepancy between

their reports was the color of the object and that it changed colors. While Wright was quoted

as saying the object size was between 75 ft and 125 ft, he recently told the author that the

object diameter covered the width of the road. This size estimate is the same as what Ronald

Martin said at the time.

Comparison of radar diagrams for the four other witnesses, whose reports were least reliable

(Figures 4 through 7), show that each of them had a different description of the sighting. Jim

Wheeler’s account is the closest to Wright and Martin’s description. The diagrams for

Alvarez and Williams look very different mainly because of lack of data. Long’s description

of his sighting, however, is very similar to William’s when we compare the known

parameters. Nevertheless, no conclusive comparative statements can be made on these four

reports. Of interest, however, is the fact that Long and Williams reported sounds just like

Saucedo. All three witnesses described the sound as a clap of thunder. Moreover, only Long

and Williams reported the object’s light to be blinking on and off and glowing intermittently

like a neon sign.

31

Two references were found stating that Ronald Martin’s truck started by itself when the

object left. One reference was an article written by Max Miller in Saucers magazine and the

other reference was Don Berliner’s article in Official UFO[45] magazine. Miller implied that

the engine of Ronald Martin’s truck started by itself when the object ascended vertically. He

quotes Martin as saying:[46]

“One thing I can’t understand is how it could stop that combustion engine and then start it

again when it took off.”

Miller’s article did not give a reference for this quote. Likewise, Berliner’s article did not

give a reference for Martin’s claim. No reliable source was found to back this claim. The

Lubbock Avalanche Journal, the Levelland Daily Sun News, and the Levelland Associated

Press wires did not mention anything about self-starting engines. Bill Wilkerson, of the

Lubbock Avalanche Journal, interviewed Martin and his article did not mention this claim. It

is possible that an out-of-town newspaper published this claim since we found contradictory

claims in other out-of-town newspapers. For example, a newspaper article from Amarillo

(based on AP and UP wires) said that the object never cut off Martin’s truck engine or

lights[47]. The best available sources of information indicate that all auto engines started

normally after the ball of light left the scene. Thus we conclude that no auto engine in

Levelland started by itself in November 2-3, 1957.

In conclusion, while there is a fundamental similarity amongst all seven reports (i.e. the car

stoppages, a light source, the timing, and location), all seven reports were different in the

details of the observations. The variety of descriptions for the light source tends to imply that

it was not the same object seen seven times in 2.5 hours. Either there was more than one

object seen that evening or it was a phenomenon whose properties were variable and diverse.

Air Force/Blue Book Investigation and

Explanation

After all the publicity on the Levelland sightings was reported all over the nation on

November 4, the Air Force was besieged by reporters calling for explanations. On November

7, Captain Andy Beasley (NORAD public information officer) said NORAD had sent an

investigator to Reese AFB, Lubbock, Texas, on Monday (November 4) to probe reports that a

brilliant colored, egg shaped object had stalled automobiles in West Texas and New

Mexico. This investigator was due to return to command headquarters on November 7.[48]

The Air Force sent Sergeant Norman P. Barth to Levelland to investigate the sightings on

November 5, 1957 (Tuesday). Sgt. Barth was a NCOIC (Non Commissioned Officer in

Charge) of the UFO Section of the 1006th Air Intelligence Security Service (AISS) located at

Ent Air Force Base in Colorado Springs. Sgt. Barth showed up in Levelland at Sheriff

Clem’s office around noon and finished his field investigation at around 6:30 PM.[149] Of

the 6.5 hours he spent in the area, at least 3 hours were spent in Lubbock. During the 6.5

hour period, he interviewed six people: Sheriff Weir Clem (Levelland), Newel Wright

(Levelland), Pedro Saucedo (Levelland), Patrolman Lee Roy Hargrove (Littlefield), Harold

D. Wright (Lubbock), and J.B. Cogburn (Whiteface). Of the six people that the Air Force

interviewed only two had their car engines and headlights shut by the mysterious ball of light

(Pedro Saucedo and Newell Wright). Three others (Sheriff Clem, Hargrove, and Harold

32

Wright) only saw a streak of light and J.B. Cogburn’s sighting was 2 days after the Levelland

event (Nov. 4, 8:45 PM).Even the Air Force report concluded that Cogburn’s sighting was

not connected with the other Levelland sightings two days earlier.

Lt. Colonel William P. Brunson of the 1006th AISS in Ent Colorado wrote the Air

Intelligence Information Report on November 18, 1957. Col. Brunson had different

conclusions for each of the witnesses. Moreover, he and Sgt. Barth rated each of the

witnesses with a reliability scale.While this study is only concerned with the auto stoppage

cases, the Air Force interviews and reliability estimates of the 3 other witnesses does provide

useful information about the weather conditions on the evening of November 2. A summary

of the conclusions for each of the five relevant sightings in Levelland is shown below in

Table 8. 1

Table 8: Air Force Reliability Ratings and Conclusions for Levelland Sightings

Reliability Estimate by Air

Force

Reliability Code given by Air

Force[50]

Air Force Explanation for

Sighting

Newell E. Wright Usually Reliable B Ball Lightning

Pedro Saucedo Not Usually Reliable D Imagination

Sheriff Weir Clem Fairly Reliable C Streak Lightning

Patrolman Lee Roy

Hargrove

Not Reported B Streak Lightning

T/Sgt. Harold D.

Wright

Usually Reliable B Heavy Electrical Storms

Col. Brunson concluded that Pedro Saucedo’s account was unreliable because of a

discrepancy between Saucedo’s estimate of the object’s speed (800 miles per hour) and

distance (300 ft away) and Saucedo’s estimate of the length of time the object was in sight (2

to 3 minutes).Besides this incompatibility, Col. Brunson states another reason why Saucedo

is not deemed reliable: Saucedo’s description of the weather condition did not agree with the

established conditions in the area. Nevertheless, Saucedo’s description of the weather was

never written in the AISS report on Levelland. ATIC’s conclusion on Saucedo was “that the

excitement of the situation probably wetted the imagination of this witness, and that at least

part of the information which he provided is false”[51].

Col. Brunson concluded that Pedro Saucedo’s account was unreliable because of a

discrepancy between Saucedo’s estimate of the object’s speed (800 miles per hour) and

distance (300 ft away) and Saucedo’s estimate of the length of time the object was in sight (2

to 3 minutes).Besides this incompatibility, Col. Brunson states another reason why Saucedo

is not deemed reliable: Saucedo’s description of the weather condition did not agree with the

established conditions in the area. Nevertheless, Saucedo’s description of the weather was

never written in the AISS report on Levelland. ATIC’s conclusion on Saucedo was “that the

excitement of the situation probably wetted the imagination of this witness, and that at least

part of the information which he provided is false”

On the other hand, Col. Brunson had a high opinion of Newell Wright. He called the Newel

Wright’s sighting the most important (of the six he reviewed).Moreover, he states that the

reliability, sincerity, and intelligence of Mr. Wright lend credence to his account. Col.

Brunson proposed four possible explanations for Newel Wright’s sighting:

33

Weather phenomena, such as St. Elmo’s Fire or a similar phenomenon

Ball lightning

Reflection of excess burning gas from a very low cloud cover

A meteorological phenomenon which could be any combination of 3 shown above

However, he wrote that insufficient knowledge of the meteorological phenomena proposed as

possible explanations existed at his organization to completely resolve the sightings. Thus,

he forwarded the sighting to the Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC) as

unresolved. ATIC on the other hand, concluded that the conditions, which existed in

Levelland during November 2 and 3, were consistent with those associated with ball lighting.

In particular, they concluded that what Newel Wright saw was ball lightning.ATIC

concluded:

“It is the opinion of ATIC that ball lightning may have contributed to the overall

circumstances of the Levelland sighting, but was not a major factor. It is concluded that the

major cause for the Levelland case was a severe electrical storm. The storm stimulated the

populace into a high level of excitement. This excitement reflected itself in their reactions to

ordinary circumstances, and resulted in the inflation of the stories of some of the witnesses

concerning their experiences”.[52]

ATIC’s conclusion that a severe electrical storm was the major cause and not ball lightning

was due to the fact that three of the six witnesses they interviewed saw only a streak of

light. Moreover, they discounted Saucedo’s sighting and ignored Cogburn’s. Thus, only one

sighting (Newel Wright’s) out of 6 sightings required the ball lighting explanation.

Col. Brunson’ AISS report did not address directly the possible cause of the automobiles

engine stoppage. That is probably why he submitted the Newel Wright case as

unresolved. ATIC, on the other hand, concluded that the two cases of motor stoppage that

the Air Force investigated (Saucedo and Wright) could be attributed to the electrical storm

either directly or indirectly. ATIC’s summary report states that “the high humidity may have

resulted in sudden deposition of moisture on distributor parts and the possibility of stoppage

due to this is especially true if moisture condensation nuclei were enhanced by increased

atmospheric ionization” This suggestion, curiously enough, was made by Dr. J. Allen Hynek

in a memo to ATIC. In the memo Hynek says that a connection between the ball lighting

phenomena and the engine stoppage was possible via ionization of the air and moisture

deposition. Later in his life, Hynek regretted supporting this hypothesis because he could not

explain why the auto engines would start right after the ball of light left the scene and

because he found no evidence that there was an electric storm in Levelland the night of

sightings.

For ATIC, the auto stoppage issue was obviously the most difficult to explain away given the

limited data and science available on ball lightning. The head of the Blue Book in 1957,

Captain George T. Gregory, admits the weakness of the ball lightning explanation in a letter

to the Air Science Division on December 4, 1957. In that letter he asks for a review of the

Levelland case with emphasis on the “missing factor” of the ball lightning hypothesis. The

missing factor he asks about was “what effect does nearby lightning discharges have on the

electrical circuits or voltage potential of automobiles”[56]. Presumably, Captain Gregory

could not explain the auto stoppages and restarts with the limited knowledge available on ball

lightning.

34

On January 3, 1958, Captain Gregory writes another concluding memo stating “the

phenomenon was undoubtedly related to the meteorological conditions that existed in the area

at that time: fog, light rain, mist, very low ceiling (400 ft), and lightning discharges. The

latter were definitely established through the results of numerous investigative reports”[57].

He concludes that all the weather conditions were conducive to a ball lightning

manifestation.Furthermore, he explains the auto stoppage occurrence with Hynek’s

explanation that ball lightning or lightning discharges were capable of ionizing the air and in

turn affect the moisture laden ignition components of a motor vehicle.

Observations and Conclusions of Air Force Investigation

While the Air Force investigation of the Levelland case had pluses and minuses, overall it

made a positive contribution to the evaluation of this case. The negative aspects of the Air

Force investigation were:

They limited the scope of investigation to only the people who they could find in

Levelland when Sgt. Barth arrived.While Sgt. Barth, tried to locate Ronald Martin, no

extra effort was made to find the other four witnesses.

No investigation was made on the affected automobiles.

They focused their attention on the electrical storm hypothesis despite many witnesses

stating that there was no electric storm.

The positive aspects of the Air Force investigation were:

They documented the interviews with the witnesses and provided better investigative

reports than the newspaper accounts.

They used Air Force resources to check for other possible causes and did not find any.

They documented the weather conditions in Levelland and Lubbock at the time of the

sightings.

They started the scientific debate on the possibility of Ball Lighting being the cause of

many UFO reports.

Nevertheless, the crux of Blue Book’s Levelland explanation rests on two key

assumptions: (1) that there was an electric storm in Levelland on the night of November 2,

1957 and (2) that ball lighting can cause automobile engines to stop.Thus, to better

understand this case, we must determine what was the weather like on Nov. 2-3 and what are

the known properties of ball lightning.

Weather

Weather According to the Air Force

ATIC concluded that there were severe electrical storms in Levelland on Nov. 2-3,

1957. Nevertheless, of the five witnesses Sgt. Barth interviewed (who had sightings on the

evening of Nov. 2 and early morning of Nov. 3), only the statement of two were

recorded. Newell Wright stated that there were heavy clouds and light rain. Harold D.

Wright stated that it was misty, with scattered clouds, slight breeze and occasional lightning.

35

The Air Intelligence Information Report, written by Col. Brunson, summarizes the conditions

reported by the US Weather Station in Lubbock (which is only 32 miles east of

Levelland). The AIIR report states that a complete overcast existed with a 400-ft ceiling,

visibility at 3 miles, surface winds were light and variable, and there was a drizzle or light

rain throughout the period. This weather report differs slightly from a teletype report sent to

ATIC from the Commander of Walker AFB on November 4, 1957. The teletype report states

that there was unlimited ceiling, with visibility at 15 miles, that surface winds were 10 knots

at 45 degrees, cloudy with light drizzle, and 5/10 to 9/10 of the sky was obscured. Besides

cloudy skies and light rain, no mention is made of a thunderstorm in these two reports. A

memo in the Blue Book files states that heavy thunderstorms were present in the area prior to

the sightings, but no reference is made to the source of information.[58] Capt. Gregory’s

memo of January 3, 1958 stated that lighting discharges were definitely established through

the results of numerous investigative reports. This conclusion was probably arrived at after

concluding that three of the sightings investigated by Sgt. Barth were due to lightning

(Harold Wright, Weir Clem, and Lee Roy Hargrove).

Weather According to Dr. James. E. McDonald

In 1966, Dr. James McDonald re-investigated the Levelland case. Dr. McDonald was a

professor of atmospheric physics at the University of Arizona, and thus was very curious

about the Air Force explanation of the case as ball lightning. In a paper he wrote in 1967 for

the American Society of Newspaper Editors, he summarized his findings on the weather

conditions in Levelland at the time of the sightings. McDonald writes: “I dug out the weather

maps and rainfall data. A large, high-pressure area was moving southward over the Texas

panhandle, completely antithetical to convective activity and lightning of any sort. A check

of half a dozen stations in the vicinity revealed that there was not even any rain falling during

this period, nor had more than a small amount fallen hours earlier that day when a cold front

passed through”[59].

In 1966, he wrote a letter to Mr. Troy Morris (a member of the editorial staff at the Levelland

Sun-News who was present at the time of the sightings) asking for weather conditions on the

night of the Levelland sightings. Mr. Morris replied in May 11, stating that “the night was

clear and there was no clouds”[60]. McDonald called him on October 5 and Mr. Morris was

“emphatic that the early hours of Nov. 3 were clear or nearly clear. He, himself, when he

heard the reports, went out to have a look on the roads. He couldn’t understand why the Air

Force would say that there were storms…”[61].

In summary, McDonald’s conclusions on the weather conditions in Levelland on the

November 2nd-3rd 1957 were:

a cold front had passed through Levelland earlier in the day on November 2

conditions were not present for lightning to occur

very little rain had fallen

there were no storms at the time of the sightings

Weather According to Newspaper Records

Weathermen in Levelland could not explain the sightings away as a weather phenomenon as

early as November 5. They were quoted in the Levelland Daily Sun-News: “weathermen

36

said they could not explain away the sightings. There were no thunderstorms in the area, and

they scoffed at St. Elmo’s light”[62].

The Lubbock Morning Avalanche reported heavy rains in the area on Sunday, November 3

but there was no mention of a thunderstorm. The article stated that “most area points

reported rain starting just about sunrise Sunday and thickening into a heavy drizzle that

continued most of the day. Some towns received rain Saturday night and it still was raining

at midnight Sunday in many places”[63]. The news report states that “a thin cold front eased

into the South Plains early Sunday morning, sliding under warm air masses to trigger steady

falling, general rains over West Texas and to keep the temperature in Lubbock below the 40

degree mark most of the day. The South Plains registered some of the heaviest falls in the

state Sunday with 1.5 inches reported at Post and Snyder”[64].

The El Paso Times also mentioned the cold front that hit Texas on November 2. The paper

stated: “rains up to two inches fell in parts of central Texas as a rather tame cold front moved

into the area Saturday night. The front reached central sections of the state at mid-afternoon,

dropping temperatures a few degrees and switching winds to the north”[65]. The Fort Worth

Star-Telegram also mentioned the cold front: “a mild cool front which pushed slowly through

Texas during the week-end brought light to moderate rains over much of West and North

Texas Sunday and dropped temperature to the 50 degree mark or below”[66].

In summary, the newspaper weather reports tend to agree with some of the witnesses that

experienced light rain on the late evening of Saturday (November 2) or the early morning

hours of Sunday (November 3). None of these newspapers mentioned thunderstorms. The

most relevant paper, the Lubbock Avalanche Journal (because Lubbock weather should have

been similar to Levelland) did not mention any thunderstorm. As a result, all we can

conclude from the newspapers is that a cold front moved into West and North Texas on

Saturday accompanied by light to moderate rains.

Weather According to US Weather Service

The US Weather Bureau has climatological data for Lubbock, Texas for 1957. Since

Lubbock is only about 32 miles east of Levelland, its weather conditions should be a good

indication of weather conditions around Levelland for November 2 and 3 1957. Daily

average climatological data for November 1 through November 5 is shown below in Table 9:

Table 9: Local Climatological Data for Lubbock, TX - November 1957[67]

Date Maximum Temp. (°F) Minimum Temp. (°F) Average Temp. (°F) Departure from

Normal Temp. (°F)

Precipitation (inches) Thunder-storm or

distant Lightning

Nov. 1 73 50 62 + 7 0.02

Nov. 2 59 45 52 - 3 0.00

Nov. 3 45 37 41 - 13 0.36

Nov. 4 45 39 42 - 12 0.17

Nov. 5 45 40 43 - 10 0.13 T

Based on daily average data collected at Lubbock, it appears that a cold front did move in

towards the panhandle of Texas on November 2. Moreover, the data sheet shows that on

37

average, there was little rain on November 2 but almost 0.4 inches of rain on Sunday the

3rd. No thunderstorms or lightning were recorded in Lubbock until November 5 on this daily

average data sheet. The Weather Bureau does have a more detailed data sheet for Lubbock

showing precipitation and lighting activity on an hourly basis. An extract of this data sheet is

shown in Table 10 below. Table 10 shows the hourly level of precipitation and any reported

thunderstorm in Lubbock from 8 PM on November 2 through 4 AM on November 3.

Table 10: Hourly Climatological Data at Lubbock, TX - November 1957[68]

Date Local Time (Hour ending at) Precipitation (inches) Thunderstorm or distant Lightning Visibility (whole

miles)

Ceiling

(Hundreds of ft)

Nov. 2 7 PM 0 15 60

Nov. 2 8 PM 0 15 70

Nov. 2 9 PM 0 15 Unlimited

Nov. 2 10 PM 0 15 Unlimited

Nov. 2 11 PM 0 15 70

Nov. 2 12 PM 0 15 Unlimited

Nov. 3 1 AM 0 15 Unlimited

Nov. 3 2 AM 0 15 Unlimited

Nov. 3 3 AM 0 T 15 70

Nov. 3 4 AM 0 15 70

The hourly data-sheet shows a different picture than the daily average data. Hourly data

shows that there was no rain in Lubbock during the hours of the sightings in Levelland from

10:50 PM on November 2 through 1:30 AM on November 3. The 0.36 inches of average

precipitation reported for November 3 occurred after 8 AM that day. Moreover, a visibility of

15 miles and unlimited ceiling during the hours of the sightings indicate that the sky was

clear.

Interestingly, however, is the fact that thunderstorms were reported in the vicinity of Lubbock

between 2 AM and 3 AM on November 3. This recorded fact tends to disagree with Dr.

McDonald’s assertion that conditions were not present for thunderstorms. The timing of the

observed thunderstorm, however, was about half-hour to one hour after the last sighting in

Levelland (~1:30 AM). The Lubbock climatological data shows that thunderstorms were

observed on November 3 but mainly from 8 AM through 8 PM.

The Levelland Daily Precipitation data sheet indicates that Levelland had 0.21 inches of rain

on average on November 2 and thunderstorms were reported on November

3[69]. Unfortunately, an hourly precipitation report for Levelland is not available and thus

the time of the reported thunderstorms and rains is not known.

38

Summary and Conclusions on Weather

The climatological data for Lubbock does not to support the weather statements made by

witnesses Newell Wright (sighting at 12:05 AM, Nov. 3) and Harold Wright (sighting at

11:35 PM, Nov. 2). Both witnesses told the Air Force that there were heavy clouds and light

rain on the early morning hours of November 3, while data shows no precipitation and

unlimited ceiling for those time periods in Lubbock. Nevertheless, the data collected was for

Lubbock and the weather in Levelland could have been different. The climatological data for

Levelland did show rain on November 2 and thunderstorms on November 3, but the data was

averaged daily and did not provide hourly detail.

The Lubbock Avalanche Journal wrote that it started raining just about sunrise on Sunday,

November 3, which tends to agree with the precipitation data on the US Weather Bureau

data-sheet. James McDonald’s weather analysis and other eyewitness testimony (Troy

Morris, Weir Clem, and A.J. Fowler) tend to agree that the sky was clear and that there was

no rain during the late evening hours of November 2 and the early morning hours of

November 3. It is interesting to note that this conclusion is similar to the teletype report sent

to ATIC from the Commander of Walker AFB on November 4, 1957. The teletype report

stated that there was unlimited ceiling, with visibility at 15 miles, cloudy with light drizzle,

and 5/10 to 9/10 of the sky was obscured. However, the information in this teletype was not

quoted by Blue Book in its final report.

All sources of weather information lead to the conclusion that there was no thunderstorm

during the time period of the Levelland sightings. The Air Force weather report never

mentioned a thunderstorm; neither did the two witnesses that the Air Force used to support

the electrical storm hypothesis. The local newspaper did not mention any thunderstorm

around Lubbock during that weekend. Moreover, the US weather station located in Lubbock

did not report any thunderstorm or lightning during the relevant period. Nevertheless, there

was thunder and lighting reported in Lubbock between 2 AM and 3 AM on November 3 and

thunderstorms were reported in Levelland on November 3. This data point contradicts Dr.

McDonald’s weather analysis that led him to conclude that the weather conditions in

Levelland could not have produced lightning of any sort.

In conclusion, there was no severe thunderstorm in Levelland during the time period of the

sightings. There could have been a few clouds with light rain in Levelland despite no rain

being reported at the Lubbock weather station. Conditions for scattered lightning, however,

cannot be discounted. Lack of a thunderstorm does not imply lack of sporadic

lightning. There was lightning reported between 2 and 3 AM on November 3 in

Lubbock. Thus, lightning conditions did exist. The issue of whether ball lightning could

happen under clear sky conditions or only during thunderstorm conditions will be discussed

below.

39

The Extraterrestrial Spacecraft Hypothesis

The Lubbock Avalanche Journal never claimed that the Levelland sightings were flying

saucers or spaceships. While on November 3 their headlines called the sightings a “Flying

Fiery Object”, by November 4 the morning paper called it a “Thing” and the afternoon paper

called it a “Flaming Thing”. James A. Lee was the first person to publicly claim that the

Levelland sightings were spaceships from other planets. James Lee claim was first printed on

November 4, 1957 and was quoted in wires from the Associated Press and United Press.

James Lee was a NICAP (National Committee on Aerial Phenomena) investigator and also

the director of the Interplanetary Space Patrol (a West Texas organization). Mr. Lee lived in

Abilene where he owned and operated a surgical and medical equipment supply store. He

rushed to Levelland on Sunday (Nov. 3) to interview and tape record the witnesses (we

believe he interviewed Newell Wright, Pedro Saucedo, and Weir Clem). Lee identified the

object as “a space craft from one of the neighboring planets” the same day he arrived in

Levelland[70]. Lee told Sheriff Clem that Levelland had a visit from another planet and left

by 11 AM on Sunday. Lee told the Lubbock Avalanche reporter that “machines inside the

object disturbed the magnetic field of balance and caused car engines to stall”.

The Dallas News staff asked Mr. Lee on November 5 about the possibility that the mystery

object might have been ball lightning. Lee responded:

“Not a chance. Whatever it was showed every indication of being under intelligent

guidance. Its objective seemed to be to land on the highway and interrupt traffic, then

immediately leave that area and fly over to another highway leading into Levelland. It landed

four times, and when observed it would take off to another location. In every case when a car

or truck would approach, it would fail to function and the lights would go out”[71].

Dr. Wayne Rudmore (a physics professor at Southern Methodist University) was the one who

offered the possibility that engine failures were caused by ball lightning or static electricity as

early as November 5.

Despite Mr. Lee’s conclusions, none of the witnesses went on record stating that the object

seen was a spacecraft from another planet. With the exception of Pedro Saucedo (who

described the object as looking like a rocket), none of the witnesses described a solid craft or

flying saucer. None of the witnesses saw landing legs, windows, or protrusions from the

object. Six of the seven witnesses only saw a flaming ball of light. Most witnesses,

including Pedro Saucedo, did not know what they saw and called the police department for

help. Newell Wright, the best witness according to Mr. Lee, never believed he saw a

spacecraft but his statements were not as popular in the press as Mr. Lee’s.

While Mr. Lee saw intelligence in the behavior of the object, Newell Wright stated recently

that he never thought the object behaved as with intelligence. One of the reasons Lee and

others assigned intelligence to the object is that when it landed it chose preferentially to land

in the middle of roads. Of the seven witnesses, five of them ran into the object in the middle

of the road in front of them. If the object was ball lightning, then it is peculiar that it dropped

preferentially onto asphalt and dirt roads. On the other hand, we don’t know where else it fell

that evening. While it is interesting that the phenomena was observed mainly along roads,

40

this fact alone cannot justify a spacecraft from another planet. Maybe the phenomenon was

observed elsewhere and was not reported because it was deemed uneventful.

The second major reason why the extraterrestrial spacecraft theory was proposed was that

nobody could figure out how a mysterious ball of light could interfere with the operation of a

vehicle. The quick explanations that the Air Force gave (wet ignition systems, nervous feet,

etc.) were only fueling the mistrust of the public. The spacecraft theory was quickly accepted

because it was able to explain the vehicle interference, the supposedly intelligent behavior,

and it rejected the Air Force’s explanations, which were deemed untrustworthy by the major

UFO groups (NICAP, APRO, and CSI). Moreover, even after the Air Force publicly

discounted the Levelland UFO sightings on November 15, Sheriff Weir Clem publicly

disagreed. He stated that the Levelland sightings were not caused by freak weather

conditions, because he had seen ball lightning and St. Elmo’s fire before and it wasn’t

that[72]. Statements from Sheriff Weir Clem and Police Officer A.J. Fowler supported the

idea that ball lightning was not the cause of the sightings and unintentionally enhanced the

extraterrestrial spacecraft idea. A.J. Fowler recently stated that he always believed (and still

believes) the object was something that the Air Force was experimenting with and that the

Air Force did not want anybody messing with it. He also stated that Sheriff Weir Clem

always believed that the object was a solid craft as opposed to a weather phenomenon.

Other Possible Explanations for Levelland

Sightings

The Levelland objects, unfortunately, did not leave any long lasting physical evidence and

were not picked up by radar. Shortly after the sightings took place, many suggestions were

made for the source of the sightings: rockets from White Sands Proving Ground, aircraft from

Reese Air Force Base, secret weapons from the Air Force, and advertising planes flying

around Levelland. Most of these explanations were rejected early on by Air Force

personnel.

Bill Haggart, from the Public Information Office at White Sands Proving Ground stated that

the mystery object, which glowed and stopped car engines near Levelland, Texas, did not

come from White Sands. He said, “it has nothing to do with any experiments

here.”[73] Moreover, Col. Barney Oldfield of the North American Air Defense said on

November 4 that “the object from Levelland… was not picked up by radar. It did not seem to

be traceable.” He said the provost marshal at Reese had investigated but found

nothing. Other peace officers in this area made a ground search but found no

signs.[74] Sheriff Clem said his office had found no evidence that any plane might have been

in trouble[75]. Authorities at Reese Air Force Base outside Lubbock also said they had

checked and could offer no explanation.

A.J. Fowler stated in his recent interview that the Levelland PD and Sheriff Weir Clem spent

some time searching for an advertising plane that supposedly was flying the night of the

sighting, but they found no evidence to back that claim. Eventually, the Air Force Blue Book

investigators rejected all these claims. This study will not evaluate any of these claims and

we mention them here just for completeness.

41

The Ball Lightning Hypothesis

General Definition of Ball Lightning

According to James Dale Barry, author of Ball Lightning and Bead Lightning, “ball lighting

is considered by many to be an atmospheric electrical phenomenon observed during

thunderstorm activity. It is reported to be a single, self-contained entity that is highly

luminous, mobile, globular in form, and appears to behave independently of any external

force.[76]” Stanley Singer (Director of Athenex Research Associates and author of The

Nature of Ball Lightning) defines ball lighting as “a luminous globe which occurs in the

course of a thunderstorm. It is most often red; although varying colors including yellow,

white, blue, and green have also been often reported for the glowing ball. The size varies

widely, but a diameter of one-half foot is common. Its appearance is in striking contrast to

ordinary lightning, for it often moves in a horizontal path near the earth at a low velocity. It

may remain stationary momentarily or change course while in motion. Unlike the rapid flash

of ordinary lightning, ball lightning exist for extended periods of time, several seconds or

even minutes”.[77]

The Reality of Ball Lighting

On January 3, 1958, Captain Gregory (officer in charge of Blue Book) wrote a memo with his

conclusion on the Levelland case. He wrote:

“After careful search, study, and consideration of all data available, the phenomenon was

undoubtedly related to the meteorological condition that existed in the area at that time: fog,

light rain, mist, very low ceiling (400 ft), and lightning discharges. The latter were definitely

established through the result of numerous investigative reports…. In summation, all of the

above were conducive to a ball lightning manifestation – a field, of which very little is known

by admission of writers and authorities themselves (Dr. John Trombridge, Enclop.Am.; Prof.

T.A. Blair, Univ. of Nebraska, Weather Elements, among others)”.[78]

Captain Gregory acknowledged that ball lightning was itself a controversial and unknown

field back in 1957. Today, while not much has changed with regard to understanding ball

lighting, there is more acceptance of its reality. According to Singer (1971):

“Despite reports of upwards of one thousand observations in the literature and more than a

half dozen comprehensive, detailed reviews of the problem, including two monographs

volumes, published in the last 125 years, ball lightning remains one of the greatest mysteries

of thunderstorm activity.[79]”

Part of the problem of understanding ball lightning is that it has been described with a diverse

and broad number of properties, which do not allow researchers to define it well. Great

contradictions are found when analyzing ball lighting reports. For example, ball lightning

phenomena has been reported under clear skies or under pouring rain, its color could be red,

blue or any combination, it could be motionless or move very fast, it could move with the

wind or against the wind, it could disappear silently or explode with a bang. Singer writes

that “from the continually accumulating observations of ball lightning it gradually became

clear that an unusual, if not wholly contradictory, combination of properties was indicated by

42

the eyewitness reports. The diversity in appearance and behavior of ball lightning in different

cases had led to the conclusion that different types of ball lightning may exist.”[80] Another

ball lightning investigator and author tends to agree with Singer on the potential for multiple

atmospheric phenomena being all lumped together under the ball lightning

umbrella. According to James Dale Barry, author of Ball Lightning and Bead Lightning, “it

is likely that several atmospheric electrical phenomena exist with similar but somewhat

different characteristics.[81]”

Nevertheless, in a 1977 paper, Singer stated that “after a century during which several noted

scientist held a negative opinion on the reality of ball lightning, it appears that in the last

decade most meteorologists and perhaps a majority of physical scientists consider the

existence of ball lightning well established.[82]” While ball lighting might be considered real

physical phenomena, no theory has been put forward yet that can explain all the

observations. While theories have been unusually numerous, no theory is accepted today

amongst ball lightning researchers.

Despite the lack of a generally accepted theory to explain ball lightning and the continued

discrepancy on the properties of ball lightning, we must acknowledge that an unknown

atmospheric phenomenon (collectively called ball lighting) exists. Given that ball lightning

is real, we must investigate whether its range of properties, behavior, and genesis describe the

events in Levelland in November of 1957.

Properties of Ball Lightning

To determine what are considered general properties of ball lightning, we selected those

listed by Singer and Barry in their respective books. According to Singer, “the general

characteristics of ball lighting are well known. These have been obtained by study of

approximately one thousand random observations by chance observers recorded over the past

century and a half in the general scientific and meteorological literature.” Barry states that

“the properties and characteristics of ball lightning have been deduced by a number of

researchers from surveys and quasi-statistical analyses of collected reports.” Thus, the

general properties listed in Table 11 are a summary of numerous reports and studies

presented by earlier researchers and not just the authors’ opinion.

Table 11: Range of Properties for Ball Lightning as Documented and Catalogued by

two Ball Lightning Researchers

Ball Lightning

Properties

Author: Stanley Singer

Title: The Nature of Ball

Lightning

Plenum Press, NY, 1971

(Quotes are all from his book)

Author: James D. Barry

Title: Ball Lightning and Bead

Lightning

Plenum Press, NY, 1980

(Quotes are all from his book)

Size The diameter of ball lightning has

been reported from pea size to

12.8 meters. The average

diameter has been reported as 20

Dimensions of the spherical or oval-

shaped ball lightning vary from a few

centimeters to several meters in

diameter. The most common diameter

43

cm, 25 cm, 30 cm, and 35 cm

depending on which database is

used. Extreme sizes of 27 m and

260 m have also been

reported. The balls viewed from

closer distance are usually

associated with smaller diameters;

the larger dimensions have been

reported for distant sightings in

which the estimation of the size is

dependent on the distance of the

object, which could itself only be

approximated.

reported is 10-40 cm. A spherical or

oval shape with a diameter less than

about 40-cm is most frequently

reported.

Shape

(protrusions,

rays, halos, or

corona)

Generally spherical or ball shaped

in 83% in Brand’s database and in

87% of cases in Rayle’s

database. A few oval or egg-

shaped masses have also been

observed.

Ball lightning has been reported with

spherical, oval, teardrop, and even rod

shapes. There are three structural

types. First, a solid appearance with a

dull or reflecting surface or a solid core

within a translucent envelope; second, a

rotating structure, suggestive of internal

motion and stress; and third, a structure

with a burning appearance. The

burning structure has been reported

most often with the spherical and oval

shapes, a red or red-yellow color, and a

diameter less than 40 cm.

Structure Ball lightning reported to have a solid

structure commonly has a green or

violet color and a diameter between 30

and 50 cm. The rotating structure is

observed with a combination of

colors. It usually has a bright-colored

interior with darker colored poles or a

translucent envelope.

Color Red and orange colors are

reported most frequently for ball

lighting according to the five

major surveys. Red was by far

the most common color. Yellow,

white, blue and blue-white are

also commonly reported. Barry

found less than 2% were blue or

blue white in his study. Green is

noted relatively rarely.

Most ball lightning reports indicate the

object as having had a red, re-yellow,

or yellow color. Other colors,

including white, green and purple were

occasionally reported. Blue and blue-

white colors are associated with reports

of St. Elmo’s fire. A color change with

time was reported by only a few of the

observers. These changes fall into

three categories: red to white, violet to

white, and yellow to white.

Duration Most common lifetime is from 1

to 5 seconds. An appreciable

number disappear in less than a

The lifetime of a ball lightning is most

often reported to be only 1-2

seconds. A lifetime of this length or

44

second and the examples with a

lifetime longer than 5 seconds are

markedly fewer. Several exhibit a

lifetime of the order of 1 minute,

and individual observations for 9

minutes and 15 minutes have been

recorded. The longer lifetimes,

extending to periods of a minute,

were correlated with motionless

blue or blue-white globes in the

survey by Barry, who concluded

that such globes were actually St.

Elmo’s fire.

less was reported or indicated in about

80% of the reports examined. A small

percentage of reports indicated longer

lifetimes, lasting up to minutes. The

longer lifetime is highly correlated with

the motionless blue or blue-white ball,

which is considered to be St. Elmo’s

Fire.

Evidence of

Heat

The absence of any heat radiating

from ball lighting has been

especially noted as unusual for a

body emitting such intense light.

This property is reported in by far

the larger number of cases. Brand

concluded that, in general, no heat

effect is exhibited by ball

lightning of the type which floats

free in the air.

A small number of observers reported

that heat emission was experienced

during the event. Death attributed to

ball lightning has also been reported.

Damage to objects that were touched

by a ball lightning has also been

reported. In contrast to these reports of

serious damage, others have indicated

that ball lightning does not emit heat

and does not cause harm to objects.

Motion

(velocity, path,

rotation,

direction with

respect to wind)

Two categories of motion have

been distinguished; the luminous

globes which fall to earth from

the upper atmosphere and those

which travel near the ground and

are formed following a lightning

stoke to earth. The general paths

which have been observed include

direct descend from the clouds to

the ground, horizontal flight close

to the earth with the wind or

sometimes directly against the

wind, upward flight, up and down

motion, or rebounding from the

earth. Velocities range from 1

meter/sec to 240 meters/second.

In general, ball lightning is most

commonly observed in descending

motion apparently from a cloud. It

usually assumes either a random or

horizontal motion several meters above

the ground. The motionless state often

results after an initial random or

horizontal motion, although it can

occur sooner. Cloud-to-cloud motion

and earth-to-cloud motion are reported

least - only a few of over 1600 reports

indicate such motion. The motionless

ball lightning is observed to hover in

midair, seemingly unaffected by

external forces. It is usually red or

yellow white in color, spherical or oval

shaped with a diameter of about 30-cm.

It is often observed to undergo a

sudden attraction to a grounded

object. It darts quickly to the grounded

object and decays noisily upon

contact. The data accumulated indicate

that if a wind-related motion is

mentioned in a report, the ball lightning

is most often observed to move along

with the wind rather than against it.

45

Smell Smells described as being of

sulfur and ozone are common. In

a few cases the odor was

compared with that of nitrogen

dioxide. General odors of

burning have also been reported.

Approximately one-quarter of the

globes reported in Rayle’s survey

were associated with a smell.

Many observers report a distinctive

odor accompanying the presence of ball

lightning. The odor is described as

sharp and repugnant, resembling ozone,

burning sulfur, or nitric oxide. The

odor is reported most often when the

distance between the ball lightning and

the observer is small. Odors of this

type are common ionization products of

a lightning discharge.

Sound Various sounds are emitted by

ball lightning. The most common

sound reported is a hissing or

crackling noise. In some

observations ball lightning is

reported as entirely silent.

A characteristic hissing sound is often

associated with the presence of ball

lightning by many review

authors. Only a few first-person

reports were found which specifically

mentioned a sound characteristic in

connection with a nearby ball lightning

observation. Conversely, a hissing

sound is definitely associated with the

St. Elmo’s fire phenomenon which is

occasionally misidentified as ball

lightning. Consequently, we may

conclude that ball lightning is

predominantly a soundless

phenomenon.

Emission of

sparks or

lightning from

the ball

Emission of sparks or long fiery

rays from ball lightning has been

noted in several occurrences

giving rise to a frequent

description of the luminous mass

as a firework.

Disappearance

of the ball

(Explosive or

Silent)

The disappearance of ball

lightning often occurs silently, but

in many cases there is a violent

explosion. Barry’s survey

indicated that a majority

exploded, including 80% of the

red balls and 90% of the yellow.

Ball lightning has been observed to

decays by two modes. One is the silent

decay, associated with a decrease in

brightness and diameter. The second,

designated as the explosive mode, is

associated with a loud violent

sound. Some observers report a sudden

color change preceding the explosive

decay.

Traces left by

the ball (Burns,

damage, etc.)

In many ball lightning

occurrences no permanent traces

are found after disappearance of

the ball despite its awesome

activity.

A small percentage of observers

mentioned a residue found after the

decay. These include, smoke or god

residue and a tar or soot residue.

Change in

appearance of

the ball (change

No change in the appearance of

ball lightning is noted during its

existence for by far the larger

Barry found less than 1% of the

observation in his survey of the

literature indicated a change in color,

46

is size or color) number of cases, but in a small

number definite changes have

been observed in the size, shape

or color. Changes in size may

involve either a decrease or an

increase. The light intensity of 12

cases in Rayle diminished and

two increased. Color changes

have also been specifically

considered by Brad and Mathias.

and all of these involved a change to

bright or dazzling white of balls from

the initial red, violet, or yellow colors.

Time of day of

the occurrence

The greatest frequency of

appearance of the balls came

approximately two hours later

than the peak in storms during the

day but otherwise roughly

resembled the distribution with

time of day exhibited by

storms. The fiery globes were

most numerous in the summer

months, 63% of the cases

considered by Brand according to

this parameter coming in this

season and a total of 80% from

May through September, again

closely following the yearly

distribution of storms. The data

of Rayle’s collection dealing

largely with observations in the

central United States also show

the greatest number appearing in

summer, 83%. The frequency of

ball lightning is thus evidently

associated with the frequency of

thunderstorms.

Occurrence

during storm

and connection

with flashes of

linear lightning

The number of ball lightning

appearances not directly

connected with a storm is very

small. Barry estimated that 90%

of the cases reported occurred

during thunderstorm activity. In

three incidents for which

reasonable complete accounts are

available there appears the

possibility of some distant residue

of storm activity although the ball

appeared under sunny skies which

were clear or contained, at most, a

few clouds. Of the reports

gathered by McNally, three

The occurrence of ball lightning is

commonly associated with natural

lightning events during thunderstorms,

tornadoes, earthquakes, and other such

stressful conditions in natures. These

observations are the basis for the

assumption that ball lightning is

associated with the ordinary lightning

discharge and is an electrical

phenomenon. This association is

supported by reports that describe a ball

lightning appearing simultaneously

with a nearby ordinary lightning

discharge, immediately following the

storm or just preceding the

47

indicated the formation of ball

lightning under a clear sky, and

Rayle reported five which did not

occur in a storm. The majority of

ball lightning incidents are further

specifically associated with

discharges of ordinary lightning,

which may appear either before or

after the ball lightning.

discharge. About 90% of the ball

lightning observations reported

occurred during thunderstorm activity.

Deviations between Levelland Sighting Descriptions and

Ball Lightning Properties

One way of evaluating whether the ball lighting hypothesis explains the phenomena observed

in Levelland is to compare the descriptions given by the seven witnesses to the ranges of

properties observed in ball lightning. If all the descriptions of the objects seen in Levelland

fall within the ranges of ball lightning properties summarized by Singer and Barry, then it is

reasonable to assume that the observed phenomena was ball lightning. On the other hand, if

we observe significant deviations from observed ball lightning properties, then the ball

lightning hypothesis must be rejected.

Table 12 summarizes the key deviations between the descriptions of the seven Levelland

sightings and the ranges for 13 ball lightning properties. The key interest here is in deviation

from the observed ranges given by Singer and Barry. If the Levelland sighting description

does not meet the average property of ball lighting but is within range, then it could be

classified as ball lighting. If a property was not reported by the witness, then we can not

judge it and we identify it as Not Available.

The reported size of the Levelland object was a key deviant from size ranges given to ball

lighting. While Singer states that the largest size of ball lighting observed was 12.8 meters

(or about 41 ft), Saucedo, Wheeler, and Long stated that the object seen was about 200

ft. Two hundred feet is way beyond the upper bound given by Singer. Singer created a graph

of the frequency distribution of ball lightning diameters for four databases of ball lightning

observations covering about 738 observations. In this graph, shown in Figure 8, Singer

shows that the largest diameter on these databases was only about 4.2 ft. Thus, either the

witnesses overestimated the size of the object seen, a new record size ball lighting was

discovered, or the observed object was not ball lightning. The other witnesses who gave size

estimates said that the ball of light was a wide as the road. A two-lane road is less than 30 ft

wide; thus these other descriptions fit the range of observed ball lightning sizes.

48

Figure 8: Distribution of Ball Lightning Diameters[83]

Shape descriptions for ball lightning matched all Levelland descriptions. While Saucedo’s

description of a torpedo or rocket shaped object is rare in ball lightning reports, Barry states

that rod shaped ball lighting has been reported. Classifying Saucedo’s drawing of his

sighting (made for the Air Force investigator and shown in Figure 9 below) as rod-shaped

ball lighting might be considered unlikely but not impossible. For example, Corliss (in his

book Handbook of Unusual Natural Phenomena) discusses the sighting of a rod-shaped ball

lightning that was described by the witness as torpedo shaped.[84]

49

Figure 9: Pedro Saucedo’s Drawing of His Sighting[85]

All colors reported by the Levelland witnesses were within range of those reported in ball

lightning observations. A few witnesses described the light as a neon sign but no color was

given. Even if we assume that the witness saw the typical color of neon gas (orange-red), it is

still within the range of colors in ball lightning descriptions.

Only three witnesses gave duration of observations, ranging from 2 minutes to 15

minutes. Eyewitness estimates of time are usually not very reliable, especially during a

stressful event. In the Levelland case, for example, Mr. Newell Wright was recently asked

about his report stating that his sighting lasted 4 minutes, and he replied that it probably

lasted seconds but felt like minutes. Despite the unreliability of eyewitness time

measurements, the reported times are within the ranges given by Singer and Barry. While

Singer and Barry say that the most common ball lightning lifetimes are 1 to 5 seconds, they

do report sightings lasting minutes. Thus, duration of the Levelland sightings does not rule

out ball lightning.

The motions observed in ball lightning are usually horizontal and vertical, which fit the

descriptions of all Levelland eyewitnesses except Alvarez’s. Most of the witnesses reported

the ball of light departing vertically upward which is rare in ball lightning reports. According

to Barry, earth-to-cloud motions are reported least (only a few of over 1600 reports indicate

such motion). Nevertheless, however uncommon, ball lighting reports with upward motion

have been recorded according to Singer and Barry. Thus, the majority of the observed

50

motions in the Levelland sightings fall within the range of motions in ball lightning. The

Alvarez sighting, however, describes the object as circling a cotton field just above the

ground. This type of motion was not found in Singer and Barry’s descriptions of ball

lightning motion. Barry does mention that spiral motions have been reported, but a spiraling

motion is not the same as a circling motion. Thus, Alvarez description of motion is

considered a deviation from the ranges given to ball lightning motion.

Smell is an interesting ball lightning property because none of the Levelland witnesses

reported smelling anything. Singer and Barry, however, say that not all ball lightning

observers report smell. According to Barry, witnesses who are closer to the ball of light

report smells more often. Nevertheless, either witnesses did not smell anything or maybe

they said it but nobody wrote it down. No conclusion for or against the ball lightning

hypotheses can be made based on the lack of smells reported.

Sound is another ball lightning property that does not help distinguish between ball lightning

and something else. According to Singer and Barry, ball lightning has been reported with

and without sound. Barry, however, states that ball lightning is a predominantly soundless

phenomenon. Of the seven Levelland witnesses, four reported no sound. The three that did

report sound described it as thunder. Saucedo appears to have heard the sound as the object

passed over his truck, Williams heard the sound when the object took off vertically, and Long

heard the sound when it settled to the ground and again as it took off. These sounds tend to

agree more with what Singer and Barry describe as the explosive mode of disappearance of

ball lighting. Apparently, ball lightning has been reported to disappear either silently or with

a loud violent sound. Either way, all seven Levelland sighting reports fall within this range of

ball lighting disappearance.

No traces were left by any of the Levelland sightings, which matches the majority of ball

lightning observations. Some ball lightning reports emit sparks or long fiery rays. Thus,

Saucedo description of a blue object with a yellow flame coming out of the rear could fall

within the ball lighting emissions described by Singer.

With regard to changes in color or light intensity, a small number of ball lightning reports

have observed changes in size, shape, intensity, and color. In the Levelland cases, Ronald

Martin, James Long, and Frank Williams reported changes in appearance. Martin reported

color changes from orange to bluish-green and back to orange. Long and Williams reported

that the object’s light was blinking on and off like a neon sign. Barry found that less than 1%

of the observations in his survey indicated a change in color. Nevertheless, all of these

involved a change from red, violet, or yellow to white. While Barry’s color changes are

different than Martin’s reported color changes, the key point is that color changes have been

reported in ball lightning observations and thus Martin’s description is not a significant

deviation. Long’s and William’s observation, on the other hand, has not been reported in

connection to ball lightning. Singer writes that 14 ball lightning cases have been reported

with changes in light intensity (in 12 of these the light intensity increase and in 2 it

decreased). Nevertheless, light intensity changes are not the same as a pulsating light. Thus,

we consider Long and William’s observations as deviant from the ball lightning observations

on changes in appearance.

The occurrence of ball lighting during storms or connected with linear lightning is very

important to the Levelland case because many previous investigators discounted the

hypotheses when no evidence of a lightning storm was found in Levelland. Dr. James

51

McDonald, who did not agree with the ball lightning hypotheses, wrote: “if there are any

workers in atmospheric electricity who hold that ball lightning can be generated without

presence of intensely active thunderstorms, I have failed to uncover such viewpoints in a

recent extensive review that I carried out on the ball lightning problem.[86]”

Singer and Barry tend to agree with Dr. McDonald in that the majority of the ball lightning

cases have been reported in connection with a lightning storm. Nevertheless, according to

Barry, 10% of the reported ball lightning cases have occurred without thunderstorm

activity. A few of these reported cases have occurred under sunny skies, which were clear or

contained a few clouds. While a lightning storm might not be required, the majority of ball

lightning incidents are specifically associated with ordinary lightning discharges that may

appear either before or after the ball lighting. Singer refers to McNally’s and Rayle’s

collection of cases (447 and 98 respectively) in which 85% and 70% of the ball lighting cases

were seen in conjunction with ordinary lightning flashes. Based on these observations, we

must not discount ball lightning as a potential cause of the Levelland sightings just because

no lightning storm was present. As unlikely as it seems, weather conditions during the time

of the Levelland sightings do not preclude ball lightning.

Table 12: Deviations between Levelland Sightings Descriptions and the Properties of

Ball Lighting

t (green) = Within Range of Singer and Barry’s Ball lightning Descriptions

x (red) = Not Within Range given by Singer and Barry

N (yellow) = Not Observed

NA = No Data Available or Not Reported

52

Fitness of Ball Lightning Hypotheses

The ball lightning hypotheses was proposed by the Air Force to explain all the facts observed

in Newell Wright’s Levelland sighting. The Air Force did not consider Saucedo’s sighting

worthy of explanation because they attributed it to imagination. Since then, however, the ball

lightning hypothesis has been used to explain all of the Levelland sightings that caused

vehicle interference. The ball lightning hypothesis must explain all of the reported

observations for it to be accepted. Detail analysis of the witness testimony and comparisons

between descriptions of the Levelland sightings and the properties of ball lighting (as

documented by Singer and Barry) indicate that there are some discrepancies. This section

will discuss the discrepancies and issues that prevent the full acceptance of the ball lightning

hypothesis. There are four key issues that are relevant to the acceptance or rejection of the

ball lightning hypothesis: (1) weather (2) deviations from ball lighting properties (3) effect

on automobile ignition and (4) other anomalous effects observed.

Ball lightning has been rejected as an explanation for the Levelland sightings because it was

assumed that its presence required a lightning storm. Because there was no lightning storm in

Levelland on the night of November 2 1957, it was concluded that ball lightning could not

have been generated. Contrary to popular belief, Singer and Barry report that about 10% of

the ball lightning cases occur without the presence of a lightning storm. Singer points out,

however, that sometimes ball lighting is seen in conjunction with a few lightning flashes but

no storm. Nevertheless, clear sky ball lighting has been observed. Thus, the ball lightning

hypothesis cannot be rejected purely because no lightning storm was present.

While no lightning storm was present in Levelland, weather conditions conducive to

lightning did exist. Based on weather reports from Lubbock, lightning was reported in the

area one hour after the sightings. Thunder and lightning were reported in Lubbock between 2

AM and 3 AM on November 3. Moreover, weather reports from Levelland indicate that

thunderstorms were reported in Levelland on November 3. While these weather reports are

not proof that lightning conditions existed in Levelland at the time of the sightings, they do

reject the idea that weather conditions in the area were not conducive to lightning formation.

The combination of these two facts (1) the possibility of ball lightning formation without

lightning storms and (2) the observation of lightning in Lubbock one hour after the incidents

prevent us from rejecting the ball lightning hypothesis for reasons of weather.

The comparison of the Levelland sighting descriptions to the observed properties of ball

lightning led to some discrepancies that must be addressed to either reject or accept the ball

lightning hypothesis. There were three areas where the Levelland descriptions did not match

the ball lightning properties (as catalogued by Singer and Barry). These areas of discrepancy

were (1) size (2) motion and (3) change in appearance. The size given by Saucedo, Wheeler

and Long (200 ft) is beyond the size of any observed ball lightning. The largest reported size

being about 41 ft. Such a deviation in size leads us to conclude that either the three witnesses

misjudged the size, a new record size of ball lightning was discovered, or the object was not

ball lightning. Eyewitnesses are typically not good measuring instruments for sizing a bright

object at a distance at night. For example, Newell Wright originally stated on his Air Force

interview that the object’s size was between 75 and 125 ft. However, when questioned 42

years later, he said that the object was not wider than the road. Thus, size discrepancy should

not be the only basis for rejecting the ball lightning hypotheses.

53

A more significant deviation between the Levelland sighting descriptions and ball lighting

properties is the change in appearance reported by Long and Williams. Both of them

reported that the object was blinking on and off like a neon light. This description does not

match any ball lighting report in Singer and Barry’s books. Thus, the observed blinking was

either a very rare ball lightning property (that has not been reported) or it was the property of

some other unknown object or phenomena.

Another deviation between the Levelland sightings and the observed properties of ball

lighting was the motion of the object observed by Jose Alvarez. He described the object as

moving in circles above a cotton field. A circling motion is not within the range of observed

motions for ball lightning as described by Singer and Barry. Thus, this observed motion is

either a rare case of ball lightning motion or it was the property of some other unknown

object or phenomena.

The most common and controversial reason for rejecting the ball lightning hypothesis is the

reported shutdown of the automobile engines and headlights by the Levelland object

subsequently followed by their normal startup when the object left. In the extensive

summary of cases provided by Singer (1971) and Barry (1980), no mention was made of ball

lightning effects on automobiles. The effect of ball lightning stopping automobile engines

was not reported in their summaries of traces left, damage, and heat. The few cases where

ball lightning did cause damage, the effect ranged from dust raised by the ball, burns in

material which the ball has touched, holes bored in walls, to the collapse of a building caused

by the explosion of the fireball. While a few cases have been reported of ball lightning

interacting with airplanes and entering houses, these cases offer no help in understanding the

effects on automobiles.

A search of the bibliography of ball lightning did not uncover any papers on the effect of ball

lightning on automobiles. Dr. Peter H. Handel (professor at the Department of Physics and

Astronomy at the University of Missouri and a theorist on ball lighting formation) replied to

the author’s inquiry on this subject stating that “there are no papers specifically written on

the interaction of ball lightning with cars and appliances.” Thus, it appears that the scientists

and investigators who study the ball lightning phenomena are not making the claim (based on

case studies) that ball lightning has stopped automobile engines from afar.

Dr. Martin D. Altschuler, author of the chapter titled “Atmospheric Electricity and Plasma

Interpretations of UFOs” in the Condon Report and a member of the Astrophysics

Department at the University of Colorado in 1968, purposely omitted the discussion of the

feasibility of ball lightning interfering with automobiles[87]. The two reasons he gave for

omitting the discussion were (1) that there was no connection between the observed unknown

object and the vehicle interference and (2) that no unusual magnetic patterns have so far been

found in auto bodies (despite the fact that the Condon Study only evaluated one

vehicle). Nevertheless, he does address the plasma hypotheses that was proposed by Phillip

Klass (in his book UFOs Identified) to explain vehicle interference. Dr. Altschuler writes

that “it is difficult to explain how a UFO-plasma could gain entry to the car battery in the

engine compartment without first dissipating its energy to the metal body of the car.”[88]

In this study we have assumed a direct connection between the Levelland object and vehicle

interference. This assumption is not deemed unreasonable because of the number of similar

cases reported in Levelland within a period of only 2.5 hours. If only one witness had

reported this incident, then maybe we could have rationalized it as two independent

54

events. But when seven witnesses report the presence of a brilliant object in conjunction with

their vehicles shutting down, then the probability of these two events being dependent

becomes significant.

The Air Force also concluded that there was a linkage between the ball of light and the

vehicle interference. The Air Force explanation, however, is not fully supported by the

scientific community. The claim that “the high humidity may have resulted in sudden

deposition of moisture on distributor parts and the possibility of stoppage due to this is

especially true if moisture condensation nuclei were enhanced by increased atmospheric

ionization”[89] has not been proven. McCampbell (1975) has also suggested that ionization

of atmospheric gases might lead to the vehicle shutdown followed by restart when the object

leaves[90]. But instead of suggesting that the object causing this effect is ball lightning,

McCampbell suggests that the object is a craft whose propulsion system ionizes the

air. Nevertheless, if experimentation shows that ionization of moist air around a 1957 type

vehicle leads to engine shutdown, then it would be more likely to support the ball lightning

hypothesis than some other.

There were also three anomalous observations reported in Levelland that defy the ball

lightning hypothesis. These observations were reported by four of the seven Levelland

witnesses (Pedro Saucedo, James Long, Jim Wheeler, and Frank Williams). James Long

reported seeing an object with its light off in the middle of the road ahead of him, and when

he approached it in his truck, the object’s light turned on. This description, obviously, does

not fit the definition or any description of ball lightning. To support the ball lightning

hypotheses requires us to discount this story as misinterpretation by the witness or bad

reporting. James Long’s story was documented second hand to the press. Only A.J. Fowler

talked to Long. George Dolan, one of the few journalists who interviewed Fowler, is the only

reporter who wrote this claim in a newspaper. Thus, we must accept this claim with caution

and doubt.

Another anomalous observation was the timing of the departure of the brilliant

object. Wheeler, Williams, and Long reported that as they got out of their cars/trucks in

order to approach the light, it took off straight up and disappeared. It is odd that in three of

the five Levelland cases were the object was sitting/hovering on the road, the object left at the

moment when the witnesses tried to approach it on foot. This type of behavior is more likely

to denote intelligence than the fact that five of the seven sightings took place in the middle of

the road (as suggested by James A. Lee). Nevertheless, the timing of the object’s exit might

just be a coincidental result from ball lightning that does imply intelligence. Moreover, the

quality of the reports obtained from these three witnesses was previously determined to be

low and these claims should be weighted appropriately. Overall, the timing of the object’s

exit is not conclusive evidence for rejecting the ball lightning hypothesis.

The third observation came from Pedro Saucedo and was well documented by the Air Force

and the press. He stated that the object caused a rush of wind that rocked his truck. This type

of physical force was not found in the ball lightning literature as an observed property of ball

lightning. Thus, what Saucedo experienced does not fit the description of ball lightning

effects. Because Saucedo’s claim is deemed accurate and cannot be discounted, we must

either reject the ball lightning hypothesis as the cause of his sighting or look more thoroughly

for evidence that fast moving ball lightning can cause a rush of wind that can rock a truck.

55

In conclusion, we reject the ball lightning hypotheses mainly because of lack of evidence that

ball lightning causes vehicle interference and not because of the lack of a storm during the

sightings. Other reasons for rejecting the ball lightning hypothesis, however, are more

contingent on the accuracy of the details given on eyewitness testimony. A summary of the

other evidence that could be used to reject the ball lightning hypothesis is shown below in

Table 13. The table splits the claims between those witness reports whose accuracy was

deemed High/Medium and those reports whose accuracy was deemed Low.

Table 13: Summary of Witness Observations that Do Not Fit the Ball Lightning

Hypotheses

Table 13 shows that most of the deviant observations (observations that could be used to

reject the ball lightning hypotheses) were made by witnesses whose reports are considered

low in accuracy. If we had to judge the Levelland sightings by only using reports of

High/Medium accuracy (Saucedo, Wright, and Martin), and assume that Saucedo misjudged

the size of the object, then these three observations would fall within ball lightning

parameters with the exception of the vehicle interference and wind effects.

The claim that ball lightning cannot momentarily stop engines and turn off headlights is still

an area that needs further research and is not a foregone conclusion. If in the future, ball

lighting researchers find conclusive evidence that ball lighting could interfere with vehicles in

the same fashion as Levelland, then we must conclude that the ball lightning hypothesis

explains the three Levelland reports of High/Medium accuracy. Moreover, if the three

reports with the most accurate details could be explained by the ball lightning hypotheses,

then it is very likely that ball lighting also caused the other four reports (whose details were

of low accuracy). This conjecture, however, requires us to discount the testimony from 4

eyewitnesses. This might not be unreasonable given that these witnesses were never

interviewed and their claims were not fully documented.

Other evidence in support of the ball lightning hypotheses is that all seven reports gave

different descriptions for the observed object. The variety of descriptions (shape, size, and

color) for the light source implies that the same object was not seen seven times in 2.5

hours. Either there was more than one object seen that evening or it was a phenomenon

whose properties were variable and diverse like ball lightning.

Despite these observations that support the ball lightning hypothesis, we must reject it as the

explanation of the Levelland sightings because of the lack of evidence for it causing vehicle

interference. Thus, we conclude that the cause for Levelland sightings continue to remain

Unknown.

56

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.

57

Climatological Data

The following are images of pages from the original data - US Weather Bureau - Local

Climatological Data (Lubbock-Texas, Nov. 1957) and US Weather Bureau - Local Daily

Precipitation (Levelland-Texas, Nov. 1957)

58

59

60

61

62

References and Sources

References

Barry, James Dale, (1980), Ball Lightning and Bead Lightning, Plenum Press, New York

Corliss, William R. (1986), Handbook of Unusual Natural Phenomena, Arlington House,

New York

Center for UFO Studies, CUFOS Files on Levelland, Chicago IL

Fund for UFO Research, (1995), UFOs and Science: The Collected Writings of Dr. James E.

McDonald,

Compiled and Edited by Valerie Vaughn, Maryland

Golde, R., (1977), Lightning, Volume 1 Physics of Lightning, Academic Press, London,

Chapter 12

Gross, Loren (1997), The Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse UFOs: A History, 1957:

November 3rd to 5th

Gross, Loren (1997), The Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse UFOs: A History, 1957:

November 6th

Gross, Loren (1997), The Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse UFOs: A History, 1957:

November 13th-30th

Hall, Richard (1964), The UFO Evidence, New Edition by Barnes & Noble Books –1997

Hendry, Allan, (1979), The UFO Handbook, Doubleday & Co.

Hynek, Allen, (1972), The UFO Experience, Henry Regnery Co., Chicago, IL

Jacobs, David M., (1975), The UFO Controversy in America, Indiana University Press,

Bloomington

Keyhoe, Donald (1960), UFO’s: Top Secret, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1960, p. 114-

117, 133-135

Menzel, Donald & Lyle G. Boyd, (1963), The World of Flying Saucers, Doubleday & Co.,

1963

Michel, Aime (1958), The Flying Saucers and the Straight-Line Mystery, Criterion Books

Mutual UFO Network, (1995), MUFON Field Investigator’s Manual, Mutual UFO Network,

Inc., 4th Edition

63

Mutual UFO Network, (1975), MUFON UFO Symposium Proceedings, Huntington Hotel,

Pasadena

Rodeghier, Mark (1981), UFO Reports Involving Vehicle Interference: A Catalogue and Data

Analysis, Center for UFO Studies, Chicago, IL

Ruppelt, Edward J. (1959), The Report on Unidentified Flying Saucers, Doubleday & Co.

Inc., 2nd Edition

Singer, Stanley, (1971), The Nature of Ball Lightning, Plenum Press, New York

Story, Ronald (1981), Sightings: UFOs and the Limits of Science, Quill, NY

US Department of Commerce, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina,

Climatological Data for Texas, November 1957, Volume LXII, No. 11, Table 3: Daily

Precipitation,

Vallee, Jacques, (1965), Anatomy of a Phenomenon, Ace Star Books, New York

Vallee, Jacques, (1966), UFO Enigma: Challenge to Science, Ballantine Books, New York

Vallee, Jacques, (1992), Forbidden Science, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley CA

Sources and Notes

[1] David M. Jacobs, The UFO Controversy in America, Indiana University Press,

Bloomington, 1975, p. 176-177

[2] Donald Keyhoe, UFO’s: Top Secret, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1960, p. 114-117,

133-135

[3] Allen Hynek, The UFO Experience, Henry Regnery Co., Chicago, 1972, Appendix 1,

pages 239-240

[4] Allen Hynek, The UFO Experience, Henry Regnery Co., Chicago, 1972, page 127

[5] Jacques Vallee, UFO Enigma: Challenge to Science, p. 158

[6] Jacques Vallee, Anatomy of a Phenomenon, p. 193, Ace Star Books, New York, 1965

[7] Jacques Vallee, Forbidden Science, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley CA, 1992, p. 85-86

[8] Ronald Story, Sightings: UFOs and the Limits of Science, p. 155, Quill, NY, 1981

[9] Richard Hall, The UFO Evidence, 1964, New Edition by Barnes & Noble Books –1997, p.

168-169

64

[10] James E. McDonald, UFOs and Science: The Collected Writings of Dr. James E.

McDonald, Compiled and Edited by Valerie Vaughn, FUROR, Maryland, 1995: (UFOs:

Greatest Scientific Problem of Our Times?, Presentation at the 1967 Annual meeting of the

American Society of Newspaper Editors, Washington, DC, April 22, 1967

[11] James E. McDonald, UFOs and Science: The Collected Writings of Dr. James E.

McDonald, Compiled and Edited by Valerie Vaughn, FUROR, Maryland, 1995: (p. 47)

UFO’s-Atmospheric or Extraterrestrial? Abstract of talk to Chicago Chapter of the

American Meteorological Society, May 31, 1968; (p. 136-139) UFOs-An International

Scientific Problem, presented March 12, 1968 at he Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute

Astronautics Symposium, Montreal, Canada; (p. 95-98) Chronological List of Some UFO

cases of Interest, March 13, 1967); (p. 189-191) UFOs: Greatest Scientific Problem of Our

Times? Presentation at the 1967 Annual meeting of the American Society of Newspaper

Editors, Washington, DC, April 22, 1967

[12] The Flying Saucers and the Straight-Line Mystery, Criterion Books, 1958, Appendix by

Alexander D. Mebane, p. 237

[13] UFO Reports Involving Vehicle Interference: A Catalogue and Data Analysis, Mark

Rodeghier, Center for UFO Studies, 1981

[14] Alamogordo Daily News, “Harvard Expert Brushes Off UFOs: Another Saucer Scare”,

Nov. 6, 1957, p. 5, Washington, Associated Press

[15] The World of Flying Saucers, Donald H. Menzel & Lyle G. Boyd, Doubleday & Co.,

1963, p. 179

[16] Ibid., p. 188

[17] Ibid., p. 189-190

[18] The Report on Unidentified Flying Saucers, Edward J. Ruppelt, Doubleday & Co. Inc., 2

nd

Edition, 1959, p. 254

10 Ibid., p. 258

[19] The Levelland Daily Sun News, November 5, 1957, Source: Loren Gross, UFOs: A

History 1957 November 3rd

-5th

, p. 63

[20] Phone interview with Newell Wright on June 21, 1999, 37 min audio-tape interview by

A.F. Rullan

[21] Air Intelligence Information Report, AISS-UFOB-386-57, Prepared by William P.

Brunson, Lt. Colonel, USAF, 1006th

AISS, Ent AFB, Colorado, Levelland Investigator was

Sgt. Norman P. Barth, NCOIC UFO Section of the 1006th

AISS

[22] Dallas Morning News, Nov. 6, 1957, “Air Force Looking Into Texas Thing”, from Dallas

News Staff and Wire Reports, p. 1 and 3

[23] Lubbock Evening Journal, Nov. 4, 1957, p. 10

65

[24] Hockley County News-Press, “Twenty-five Years Ago UFO visited Levelland”, Nov. 4,

1982, p. 1 & 2, by Beverly Taylor and Rick Lee,

[25] Lubbock Morning Avalanche, Nov. 4, 1957, p. 1 and 10, “Levelland Flaming Thing

Brings World Knocking at City’s Door”, by Bill Wilkerson

[26] Lubbock Morning Avalanche, Nov. 4, 1957, p. 1 and 10, “Levelland Flaming Thing

Brings World Knocking at City’s Door”, by Bill Wilkerson

[27] Air Intelligence Information Report, AISS-UFOB-386-57, Prepared by William P.

Brunson, Lt. Colonel, USAF, 1006th

AISS, Ent AFB, Colorado, (19 pages), Levelland

Investigator was Sgt. Norman P. Barth, NCOIC UFO Section of the 1006th

AISS (Source:

CUFOS file on Levelland)

[28] Phone interview with A.J. Fowler on June 21, 1999, 50 min audio-tape interview by A.F.

Rullan

[29] Lubbock Morning Avalanche, Nov. 4, 1957, p. 1 and 10, “Levelland Flaming Thing

Brings World Knocking at City’s Door”, by Bill Wilkerson

[30] The Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse UFOs: A History, 1957: November 3

rd to 5

th ,by

Loren E. Gross, 1997, p. 3

[31] CUFOS file on Levelland, 1 page memo to file from Sgt. Norman P. Barth, February 19,

1958, titled: “Prime Source in Levelland UFO Case”,

[32] Civilian Saucer Intelligence News, “USAF vs. UFO: How the Air Force Slew the Flying-

Saucer Dragons”, date?, CSI Files at CUFOS

[33] The Levelland Daily Sun News, November 6, 1957, “At Day In the Sun”, Newspaper

clipping located in UFO: A History 1957, November 6th

, by Loren E. Gross, p. 13

[34] The El Paso Times, Nov. 4, 1957, “Mystery Object Stalls Autos in West Texas, p. 1 and

2, by Associated Press Wire from Levelland

[35] Phone interview with A.J. Fowler on June 21, 1999, 50 min audio-tape interview by A.F.

Rullan

[36] Lubbock Morning Avalanche, Nov. 4, 1957, “Levelland Flaming Thing Brings World

Knocking at City’s Door”, by Bill Wilkerson, p. 1 and 10

[37] MUFON Field Investigator’s Manual, Mutual UFO Network, Inc., 4

th Edition, 1995, p.

216

[38] Witness’ unreliability in judging distances has been well documented by Allan Hendry in

his book The UFO Handbook where he summarizes his findings from evaluating 1,307 UFO

reports. The UFO Handbook, Allan Hendry, Doubleday & Co., 1979, p. 93-103

[39] The reported Location of Wheeler’s sighting differs according to source. The Forth

Worth Star Telegram reported that it was at the intersection of Highway 51 and a farm road

66

eight miles North of Levelland, while the Lubbock Avalanche Journal reported that it

happened 4 miles East of Levelland on Hwy. 116.

[40] The reported Location of Alvarez’ sighting differs according to source. The Forth Worth

Star Telegram reported that it was 4 miles East of Levelland near the Lubbock Highway,

while the Lubbock Avalanche Journal reported that it happened 10 miles north and slightly

east of Levelland.

[41] The reported Location of William’s sighting differs slightly according to source. The

Forth Worth Star Telegram reported that it was 4 miles North of Levelland on Route 51 while

the Lubbock Avalanche Journal reported that it was closer to Whitharral about 10 miles north

of Levelland.

[42] Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Nov. 4, 1957, “Whatnik Sidelines Sputnik, Woofnik”, Star-

Telegram writer George Dolan, p.1-2

[43] Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Nov. 4, 1957, “Whatnik Sidelines Sputnik, Woofnik”, Star-

Telegram writer George Dolan, p.1-2

[44] There is disagreement on whether Mr. Long saw a bright object sitting on the road or a

dark object that turned it light on. The Forth Worth Star Telegram of Nov. 4, 1957, reported

that Long saw an object with its light off while the Associated Press Wire from Levelland

reported that he saw a brilliant, egg-shaped mass sitting on the road.

[45] Berliner, Don, “The Levelland Sightings:, Official UFO, January 1976, p. 46

[46] Miller, Max B. “The Great Saucer Flap of 1957” Saucers, Winter 1957-1958, Vol. V, No.

2, p.5 (Also in UFOs a History: 1957 November 3rd

-5th, by Loren Gross, p.3)

[47] The Amarillo Daily News, November 4, 1957, “Object Lands on Highway”, by Regional,

AP and UP Sources

[48] Las Cruces Sun News, Nov. 7, 1957, p. 9, “Reports of Objects Unabated”, by Associated

Press-Colorado Springs, CO

[49] UFO’s: a History 1957 - November 3

rd-5

th, by Loren E. Gross, p. 62 and 73

[50] Telegram from Commander of 1006

th to Assistant Chief of Staff Intelligence at AF

Headquarters and to ATIC Commander at Wright Patterson AFB, Source: CUFOS Files on

Levelland

[51] CUFOS’ file on Levelland, 3 page summary from ATIC titled: “Levelland, Texas: 2,3,

and 4 November 1957”

[52] CUFOS’ file on Levelland, 3 page summary from ATIC titled: “Levelland, Texas: 2,3,

and 4 November 1957”

[53] CUFOS’ file on Levelland, 3 page summary from ATIC titled: “Levelland, Texas: 2,3,

and 4 November 1957”

67

[54] CUFOS’s file on Levelland, one page memo from J. Allen Hynek discussing the

Levelland Case (no date)

[55] The UFO Experience, J. Allen Hynek, 1972 , Henry Regnery Co., Chicago IL, p. 127

[56] Letter from Captain George T. Gregory to Air Science Division requesting review of

Levelland Case, December, 4, 1957 (Located in CUFOS File for Levelland)

[57] CUFOS’ file on Levelland, one page memo from Capt. G.T. Gregory, January 3, 1958,

titled “Analyst’s Comments or Conclusions: Ball Lightning”

[58] Blue Book memo titled “Levelland, Texas Blue Light Case – 2 November 1957”, in

CUFOS’ file on Levelland

[59] James E. McDonald, UFOs and Science: The Collected Writings of Dr. James E.

McDonald, p. 190, Compiled and Edited by Valerie Vaughn, FUROR, Maryland, 1995:

(UFOs: Greatest Scientific Problem of Our Times? Presentation at the 1967 Annual meeting

of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Washington, DC, April 22, 1967

[60] Letter from Troy Morris to Dr. J.E. McDonald on May 11, 1966, Source: UFOs: A

History – 1957 November 13th

-30th

, by Loren E. Gross, p. 27

[61] Letter from James McDonald to Richard Hall, October 5, 1966, Source: CUFOS file on

Levelland

[62] Levelland Daily Sun-News, November 5, 1957

[63] Lubbock Morning Avalanche, Nov. 4, 1957, p. 1, “Rains Douse South Plains”

[64] Ibid.

[65] The El Paso Times, November 3, 1957, “Rains, Cold Hit Texas Saturday”, by the

Associated Press

[66] Fort Worth Star Telegram, November 4, 1957, “Light Rains to Continue During Today,

Bureau Says”, p. 1

[67] Local Climatological Data, Lubbock, Texas, November 1957, US Department of

Commerce, Weather Bureau, Source of Document: Office of the Texas State Climatologist

[68] Local Climatological Data, Lubbock, Texas, November 1957, US Department of

Commerce, Weather Bureau, Source of Document: Office of the Texas State Climatologist

[69] Climatological Data for Texas, November 1957, Volume LXII, No. 11, Table 3: Daily

Precipitation, Source: US Department of Commerce, National Climatic Data Center,

Asheville, North Carolina

[70] Lubbock Evening Journal, November, 4, 1957, “Area Mystified by Thing”, p. 1 & 10,

68

[71] Dallas Star Morning News, November 6, 1957, “Air Force Looking Into Texas Thing”, p.

1 & 3

[72] Levelland Daily Sun News, Nov. 17, 1957, p. 1 “Weather Phenomenon? Clem Vows

What He Saw Sure Wasn’t”

[73] El Paso Herald Post, Nov. 4, 1957, p. 12, “El Paso Couple Saw Strange Flying Objects”,

p. 12, by Virginia Turner)

[74] Alamogordo Daily News, “WSPG Pickets Mark Fireball At Trinity Site”, Nov. 5, 1957,

p.1 and p. 6

[75] El Paso Times, Nov. 4, 1957, “Mystery Object Stalls Autos in West Texas”, p.1 and p.2,

by Associated Press in Levelland

[76] Ball Lightning and Bead Lightning, James Dale Barry, Plenum Press, New York, 1980

[77] The Nature of Ball Lightning, Stanley Singer, Plenum Press, New York, 1971

[78] CUFOS’ file on Levelland, one page memo from Capt. G.T. Gregory, January 3, 1958,

titled “Analyst’s Comments or Conclusions: Ball Lightning”

[79] The Nature of Ball Lightning, Stanley Singer, Plenum Press, New York, 1971, p. 146

[80] Ibid., p. 62, 146

[81] Ball Lightning and Bead Lightning, James Dale Barry, Plenum Press, New York, 1980, p.

9

[82] Lightning, Volume 1 Physics of Lightning, Edited by R. Golde, Academic Press, London,

1977, Chapter 12, “Ball Lightning” by Stanley Singer, p. 414

[83] The Nature of Ball Lightning, Stanley Singer, Plenum Press, New York, 1971, Figure 19,

p. 66,

[84] Handbook of Unusual Natural Phenomena, William R. Corliss, p. 21-22, Arlington

House, New York, 1986

[85] Air Intelligence Information Report, AISS-UFOB-386-57, Prepared by William P.

Brunson, Lt. Colonel, USAF, 1006th

AISS, Ent AFB, Colorado, (19 pages), (Source: CUFOS

file on Levelland)

[86] James E. McDonald, UFOs and Science: The Collected Writings of Dr. James E.

McDonald, Compiled and Edited by Valerie Vaughn, p. 191, FUROR, Maryland, 1995:

(UFOs: Greatest Scientific Problem of Our Times? Presentation at the 1967 Annual meeting

of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Washington, DC, April 22, 1967

[87] Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, Edited by Daniel S. Gilmore, Bantam

Books, New York, 1968, p. 749, (Study conducted by the University of Colorado and

directed by Dr. Edward U. Condon under contract to the United States Air Force)

69

[88] Ibid.

[89] CUFOS’ file on Levelland, 3 page summary from ATIC titled: “Levelland, Texas: 2,3,

and 4 November 1957”

[90] “UFO Interference with Vehicles and Self-Starting Engines”, James M.

McCampbell, (MUFON UFO Symposium Proceedings, Huntington Hotel, Pasadena, 1975)