NUFORC Home Page
Web Report Indexes : by Event Date | by Location | by Shape | by Posting Date

National UFO Reporting Center
Sighting Report
Occurred : 4/1/2001 19:05
Reported: 12/4/2001 13:53
Posted: 3/21/2003
Location: Stillwater, MN
Shape:
Duration:
((NUFORC Note: This report is submitted by Craig R. Lang, State Director for Minnesota for the Mutual UFO Network (crlang@mm.com>. The investigator was Mr. Dean DeHarpporte, MUFON Field Investigator. Our gratitude to both for following up on the report, and for sharing the results. PD))


01 April, 2001, Close Sighting of Large Triangular Object and Other Objects 1 of 2

Date of Sighting: 01 April, 2001
Date of report: 01 Dec. 2001. Investigator: Dean DeHarpporte, Minnesota MUFON Field Investigator.
Time of Sighting: Final stages of dusk, nearly dark (~7:05 PM, 25 minutes after sunset)
Weather conditions: Clear, light wind, temperature near 40 F.
Sighting Duration: Witness 1, ~1 minute, Witness 2, ~1 minute
Sighting Location: -2 miles north of Stillwater, Minnesota on highway 96, intersection with Highway 5.
Type of Report: Witness 1, Close sighting of triangular object. Simultaneously, witness 2 saw several
distant lights.
Local Evaluation: Witness 1 UFO, CE1 Unexplained. Witness 2 possible CE1, probably airplane lights.

Sighting background:
The witnesses, a married couple, called the UFO reporting center on the night of the sighting and witness data was relayed to this investigator in October, 2001. The investigator interviewed the witnesses on 14 November, 2001 for one hour, He did not visit the site of the sighting due to lack of enthusiasm to do so by the witnesses. Each of the 2 witnesses observed different UFOs. It is possible, but not likely, that they were related, since they were several miles apart and their appearance differed radically.

Witness Description:
Witness 1. Male, age middle 30s. Occupation: works at assembly plant in Stillwater. He was strongly impressed by the sighting and talked about “nothing else” that night with witness 2, his wife. However, he was not traumatized. He has not spoken about the sighting except for a few people close to him until the interview with the investigator. No previous or subsequent UFO sightings. Witness was in good health with good eyesight. The witness did not have any particular interest in UFOs and had not read any books on the subject before his sighting.
Witness 2. Female, age early-middle 30s, wife of Witness 1. Works in local area. Witness is apparently in good physical condition. Eyesight, hearing are good. Witness was excited about the sighting (even 6 months later) but did not describe any symptoms of trauma. No previous or subsequent UFO sightings. The witness did not have any particular interest in UFOs and had not read any books on the subject before her sighting. She has done some reading after the sighting.

Sighting Account.
The witnesses were driving east on Rt. 96 near the intersection with highway 5 in a rural area 1-2 miles north of Stillwater, MN ( ~22 miles east of St. Paul.) The landscape is gently rolling comprised of crop fields and wooded areas. It was nearly dark, but some light remained in the sky, which was clear.
Witness 1,
Object description.. Sitting on the passenger side of the car the witnesses were traveling in, witness 1 noticed a lighted, triangular object to his right. The object appeared to be about 250 ft on a side. The witness reported the triangle was equalateral, though his (inexact) drawing shows it as isosceles. It was not possible to discern a texture to the surface of the object. A bright white light was at each apex of the triangle underneath the craft. The lights were not bright enough to illuminate the ground beneath the craft. There was also a red light in the center of the bottom of the triangle, less bright than the white lights, which blinked about once per second. There were no other lights on the object and no windows, orifices or other surface features were visible. The color of the object was black, but not the same color as the stealth aircraft. The object produced no sound, although the witness did not get out of the car. No other witnesses are known to have observed the object.
Position, movement and duration. The nearest surface of the object was approximately at a 60 degree angle from the ground when the craft was at its lowest altitude. When first seen the object was about 400 ft above ground but moved down “quite rapidly” to about 150 ft and hovered for several seconds, then rose up to about 400 ft. There was no apparent lateral motion of the object. The car was moving about 45 mph but slowed to 10-15 mph immediately upon sighting of the object. The object was last seen to the rear of the car and disappeared when the car got too far away for the witness to see it. The duration of the sighting was about 1 minute. Witness 2, the driver, did not see the object because she was concentrating on driving.
Drawing of object. When he came home the witness made drawing of the object (Fig. 1) which looked substantially the same as the drawing he made during the investigation. The original drawing was lost. After the sighting, he read some UFO literature, including accounts of the triangular objects seen in Belgium in the early 90s. as shown in Figure 1.


2 of 2
Figure 1. Object viewed from below at its lowest altitude.

















Sighting evaluation: CE1. The object described is similar to the description of many triangular objects seen worldwide for the past 20 years. There is no conventional explanation apart from the possibility that the craft was an advanced military aircraft. However, current known technology is not consistent with a craft capable of hovering and moving rapidly vertically upward and downward without engine noise.

Witness 2
Object description. Witness 2 observed two white lights, separated by the width of her thumb at arms length directly in front of her (toward the east). The lights were estimated to be 15 miles away (though she emphasized the uncertainty of this estimate), and were seen at the same time as witness 1 observed the triangular object to his right. Witness 1 also observed the two lights, but not closely, since he was occupied with observing the triangular object to his right. Witness 2 estimated the size of the lights to be about 1/8th the diameter of the moon and the brightness as brighter than a streetlight. Based on the inverse square law, this would mean the lights were more than 225 times the intrinsic brightness of a streetlight. As far as she could tell the object was not illuminating the ground. No other witnesses are known to have observed the lights.
Position, movement, and duration. Witness 2 estimated that the object was about 20 degrees above the ground. This would make the altitude of the lights about 6 miles (~31,000 ft). The lights appeared motionless for about 1 minute, then moved downward rapidly until they disappeared below the tree-lined horizon about 3 seconds after they began their descent. The calculated speed of movement was 7200 mph. The lights disappeared at about the same time as witness 1 lost sight of the triangular object. The witnesses observed airplanes in the vicinity but witness 2 was adamant that the lights she saw were not conventional aircraft. The nearest airport is 9 miles to the southwest, 135 degrees to the right of (behind) the direction where the objects were sighted. There are no airports within at least 40 miles to the east of the sighting location.
Additional lights. During the time the 2 lights were hovering, they emitted 2 smaller lights which circled downward and back up and joined with the primary light a few seconds after they appeared. The witness had no estimate of the speed of these lights and said they were not quite as bright as the primary lights.
Sighting Evaluation: Probably conventional aircraft. If the object size was 1/8th the apparent diameter of the moon and 15 miles away, it would have been a very large object, indeed. At 225 times the brightness of a streetlight, it would also have been exceedingly bright. The downward speed of 7200 mph is also extraordinary. The lack of other witnesses or press coverage of such a remarkable object as well as the inexperience of the witness and the well known difficulty in judging distances of lights in the sky causes the investigator to believe that the lights were probably much closer than estimated and thus much smaller and less bright. Despite the lack of an airport in the direction of the sighting, the presence of a major airport, MSP, 30 miles west of the sighting causes the investigator to believe that the lights could very possibly have been attached to aircraft. However, there is not enough information to make an unambiguous judgment.