• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Space Penguins Of Tuscumbia, Missouri (1967)

Here's the original relevant entry from the CUFOS HUMCAT compilation for 1967. I presume this is the original version of the report which would end up included in Rosales' later compendium. This version provides reference citations for Phillips' documented reports.

Tuscumbia-HUMCAT-Orig.jpg
SOURCE: http://www.cufos.org/HUMCAT/HUMCAT_Index_1967.pdf
 
BS3 said:
So - there must be a 'special report' by Phillips somewhere, unless this is what was in the 1969 APRO Bulletin.
Click to expand...

Yep - that's how it looks to me. This original HUMCAT excerpt contains the first set of specific clues I'd been able to locate concerning any published Phillips reports prior to his 2005 "Physical Traces" compilation.
 
I've been trying to pin down the location of Edwards' farm based on the few details given and the old aerial photo in the article - about 5 miles along Rt 52 from Tuscumbia, south of the road.

The best candidate I've come up with so far is here, assuming the barn still remains while the house itself has been demolished:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/y9qk8rndsPzJUsq17

Still doesn't seem quite right though. I was hoping the local topography might provide some clues as to whether the object could have been wind-blown.

I was also interested to read that, although Edwards clearly had roots in the immediate area and the 'family farm' had been close to his 1967 home, he had spent "thirty or more years" living in Kansas City before moving back to Tuscumbia: he wasn't wholly a countryman. I wonder if there is just a slight hint of 'status inconsistency' here.
 
BS3 said:
I've been trying to pin down the location of Edwards' farm based on the few details given and the old aerial photo in the article - about 5 miles along Rt 52 from Tuscumbia, south of the road.
The best candidate I've come up with so far is here, assuming the barn still remains while the house itself has been demolished:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/y9qk8rndsPzJUsq17
Click to expand...

Good work!

That looks like a good match to me. The tree line has shifted in over a half-century, but I can correlate multiple features (including traces of lanes and fence rows) between the two.

Here's a comparison of the museum's aerial photo and an excerpt from Google Maps ...

111212_21_LandingAreaOfAliens.jpg

CE-FARM-GoogleMap.jpg
 
I've found an interesting record of Phillips describing what's obviously the Tuscumbia incident to a Columbia Missouri newspaper in September 1976. The overall article is about Phillips and his UFO-related work. Here's the specific excerpt covering his allusion to the Edwards sighting:
UFO Expert Studies Night Flights over State

... "Reports show that the lesser the population of an area, the greater the number of sightings. Obviously, they want to land where they are not likely to be seen,"he says.

"They,"in Phillips's vernacular, are not the crafts, but their humanoid operators.

After hearing a report of a UFO-humanoid sighting in south-central Missouri in 1967, Phillips investigated and talked to a witness. "He said he saw a circular spacecraft, 18 feet (5.4meters) in diameter, sitting in a nearby field. He saw two small creatures leave the craft from a shaft descending to the ground. He said they were about four feet(1.2meters) tall, wearing tight-fitting greenish outfits. They had a large protuberance where the nose would be, and two arms or levers - he couldn't be sure.

The witness reports he began walking toward the craft and saw the humanoids re-enter the ship. "He got within 15 feet (4.5meters) of the craft and came upon a pressure he couldn't get through. He threw some rocks at the craft, but they hit the pressure field and fell to the ground. The ship then took off and disappeared."

The center has examined thousands of reports on humanoids in connection with UFO sightings, Phillips says,"and over 80 percent of them describe the critters as 3 to 4 feet(1.1to1.2meters)tall with thin, spindly bodies, slightly enlarged heads, pale skin, no hair, tight-fitting suits and sometimes head gear." ...
Click to expand...
SOURCE / FULL ARTICLE:
Columbia Missourian Newspaper 1976-09-12
Vol. 68th Year, No. 300
https://mdh.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/colmo7/id/32947/
 
Last edited:
Notice the following variations in this 1976 newspaper account that are unique among the accounts I've seen so far. According to Phillips, Edwards:

- saw only two creatures;
- witnessed them exit the craft;
- estimated their height as 4 feet (rather than 3 feet or less);
- witnessed the two creatures re-enter the craft before throwing the first rock.
 
I've found the 1971 FSR Case Histories report by Phillips (cited in the CUFOS HUMCAT entry I posted earlier). It's an entry within:

UFO events in Missouri 1857-1971
Ted Phillips
Flying Saucer Review Case Histories, No. 8, 1971, pp. 10 - 11.
http://www.ignaciodarnaude.com/avis...s,UFOs 1857-1971,Missouri,FSR-CH 1971 N 8.pdf

Here is the full text of the case entry. Note that it says "this account" is the one that appeared in the September / October 1969 issue of APRO Bulletin. I'm not sure whether this means the text below is a verbatim transcript of the 1969 article.

Phillips-UFOsMissouri-A.jpg

Phillips-UFOsMissouri-B.jpg
 
Now here's the even more interesting bit ... In the 1971 Case Histories item Phillips includes two graphics illustrating both the creature and the object / craft Edwards saw. These may or may not have appeared in his 1969 report (his phrasing is unclear on this point).

NOTE: These two figures are NOT among the illustrations in the FSR article about a Brazilian case Phillips mentions here. These figures are specific to the Tuscumbia case. This seems clear, given that the dimensions shown for the object match the Case Histories text exactly.

Phillips-UFOsMissouri-Figs.jpg
 
NOTES concerning unique elements of Phillips' Case Histories account (possibly a copy of the 1969 APRO Bulletin account) ...

- In this account, Phillips uses "object" to refer to both the mushroom-shaped craft(?) and the moving figures observed beneath it.

- In this account the figures retreated into the larger object as Edwards approached - and before he threw the first rock.

- Phillips states Edwards' closest approach to the object by the time the figures retreated into it was on the order of 80 feet. There's no indication Edwards observed the moving figures at any closer distance than this.

- Edwards had approached to circa 15 feet from the object and the figures were apparently back inside it when he was stopped by the mysterious "pressure".

- The object rocked "back and forth" six times before departing.

- This account specifies that the object flew off to the northeast (the direction most consistent with other accounts that mention direction of travel).

- Notice that other accounts estimate the figures' height as anywhere from circa 3 to circa 4 feet tall. This account specifically states the bottom of the object's mushroom-shaped main body was only 2.5 feet off the ground. One of Phillips' other accounts stated the object was 8 feet tall and 6 feet thick, implying only circa 2 feet of ground clearance. How could figures as tall as 3 or 4 feet be moving around underneath the object if its bottom was only 2 - 2.5 feet off the ground? The moving figures are consistently described as moving around beneath the mushroom-shaped object / craft.

- The "shaft" upon which the object stood is described here as being circa 18 inches in diameter. Phillips would describe the depression left in the soil as being circa 3 feet / 1 meter in diameter.

- The profile of the creature's "head" is considerably different from most all depictions of the occupants I've seen to date.
 
BS3 said:
I've been trying to pin down the location of Edwards' farm based on the few details given and the old aerial photo in the article - about 5 miles along Rt 52 from Tuscumbia, south of the road.

The best candidate I've come up with so far is here, assuming the barn still remains while the house itself has been demolished:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/y9qk8rndsPzJUsq17

Still doesn't seem quite right though. I was hoping the local topography might provide some clues as to whether the object could have been wind-blown.

I was also interested to read that, although Edwards clearly had roots in the immediate area and the 'family farm' had been close to his 1967 home, he had spent "thirty or more years" living in Kansas City before moving back to Tuscumbia: he wasn't wholly a countryman. I wonder if there is just a slight hint of 'status inconsistency' here.
Click to expand...

Well done! l made some efforts to locate the farm, based on the scanty evidence, but you seem to have succeeded where l failed.

General note to any future witnesses reporting/recording a Fortean incident: Please include an exact location! You’ll make researchers’ jobs much easier.

Thank you.

maximus otter
 
EnolaGaia said:
Notice the following variations in this 1976 newspaper account that are unique among the accounts I've seen so far. According to Phillips, Edwards:

- saw only two creatures;
- witnessed them exit the craft;
- estimated their height as 4 feet (rather than 3 feet or less);
- witnessed the two creatures re-enter the craft before throwing the first rock.
Click to expand...

All these variations are a bit of a cause for concern, though I suppose they might have been introduced by the reporter interviewing Phillips. Some of them are quite significant, eg "two" entities isn't "several", and it sounds like he never really got close to them. I suppose Phillips' earlier write up should take priority, though if he isn't consistent about details himself this makes the job a lot harder.

We also have the usual issue with this kind of story in that I think many accounts, including that given by the local museum, now seem to be based directly on the Cryptopia article, but the latter may - it's difficult to tell as sources are never properly referenced - have introduced minor variations and inaccuracies in the process of trying to turn it into a satisfying story.

The 1971 illustration of the 'creature' seems to me more obviously sack-like than the illustration which purports to be a sketch by Edwards himself; neither does it match some versions of the description. Why so much variation in a case without that many sources?
 
One other observation from these additional sources: the detail that the object's surface was "more like silk than metal" reinforces the idea that it might have been a parachute or balloon, as does the description of the creatures as "about the same colour" as the object (problematic as that is for other parts of the description).

I'd particularly like to know why, if Edwards first thought it might be a parachute, he started to think otherwise (was it the 'creatures'? The lights? Some other thing?) and also why Phillips seems to have ruled this explanation out himself.

One potential issue here is that, without much information on how the story got to Phillips, there seems a possibility that the witness has been inadvertently led to embellish through social pressure. I recently read a good example from the 1954 French wave in which, according to the sources, a bright saucer was seen resting on or near some railway tracks by a man passing on his way to work. A ufologist tracked the witness down in the early 1980s, and found that his own recollection was less spectacular and immediately suggested a solution - light from welding work being carried out on the track during the night. The witness had not really thought much of what he'd seen at the time, but had told his boss on arrival at work - the boss was interested in 'saucers', retold the story to a journalist with a 'saucer' angle, the journalist elaborated it a bit further, and the witness suddenly found himself drawn into a situation where he was under great pressure to produce a 'saucer' story. I don't know whether that happened here, but Edwards' stated initial reticence might be a clue, as might his apparent background in urban Kansas City before moving back to a rural farming life - maybe Phillips' interest, the radio interviews and the like, were an exciting diversion? I think we tend to assume that elderly farmers are unimaginative people who are content with their life, but I've known people who strongly disprove the stereotype.
 
Last edited:
BS3 said:
One other observation from these additional sources: the detail that the object's surface was "more like silk than metal" reinforces the idea that it might have been a parachute or balloon, as does the description of the creatures as "about the same colour" as the object (problematic as that is for other parts of the description).

I'd particularly like to know why, if Edwards first thought it might be a parachute, he started to think otherwise (was it the 'creatures'? The lights? Some other thing?) and also why Phillips seems to have ruled this explanation out himself.

One potential issue here is that, without much information on how the story got to Phillips, there seems a possibility that the witness has been inadvertently led to embellish through social pressure. I recently read a good example from the 1954 French wave in which, according to the sources, a bright saucer was seen resting on or near some railway tracks by a man passing on his way to work. A ufologist tracked the witness down in the early 1980s, and found that his own recollection was less spectacular and immediately suggested a solution - light from welding work being carried out on the track during the night. The witness had not really thought much of what he'd seen at the time, but had told his boss on arrival at work - the boss was interested in 'saucers', retold the story to a journalist with a 'saucer' angle, the journalist elaborated it a bit further, and the witness suddenly found himself drawn into a situation where he was under great pressure to produce a 'saucer' story. I don't know whether that happened here, but Edwards' stated initial reticence might be a clue, as might his apparent background in urban Kansas City before moving back to a rural farming life - maybe Phillips' interest, the radio interviews and the like, were an exciting diversion? I think we tend to assume that elderly farmers are unimaginative people who are content with their life, but I've known people who strongly disprove the stereotype.
Click to expand...
Good shout. Also rail engineers using coloured lasers when working on the tracks and have been responsible for a few nighttime 21st Century internet UFO reports.

So many 20th Century intriguing UFO witness reports were seized upon by self-styled ‘researchers’ using dubious interview methods, huge amounts of confirmation bias and now discredited hypnotherapy. I also feel many secondary witnesses may also have been invented or persuaded to tell an exaggerated version of what they saw/experienced eg “Well I saw some lights” is met by “Wow! So you saw the UFO too…?

The motive as ever was personal ego, monetary gain and, of course, proving their beliefs. Years later we are left to sort through these accounts, many of which were experienced by usually sincere but relatively uneducated or just plain gullible original witnesses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BS3
BS3 said:
... I'd particularly like to know why, if Edwards first thought it might be a parachute, he started to think otherwise (was it the 'creatures'? The lights? Some other thing?) and also why Phillips seems to have ruled this explanation out himself. ...
Click to expand...

Recall that his original sighting was from a distance and occurred under twilight illumination (just prior to sunrise). My guess is that the dome-like shape was the main thing that insinuated a parachute to Edwards.

I suspect as he moved closer and the illumination improved he could see the domed upper portion and the "stalk" upon which it appeared to rest more as a static structure (no flopping or undulation).

Once he could make out the evenly spaced windows-that-weren't-windows around the rim of the dome / cap I suppose the impression of a rigid static structure was firmly in place.

I'm still trying to settle on an interpretation of the colors / lights Edwards reported at the ends of the non-windows. Some accounts describe the colors / lights as dynamic - "as if" there were something moving or happening within the dome. However, it doesn't seem that Edwards ever clearly claimed to have witnessed movement inside the dome.
 
EnolaGaia said:
Recall that his original sighting was from a distance and occurred under twilight illumination (just prior to sunrise). My guess is that the dome-like shape was the main thing that insinuated a parachute to Edwards.

I suspect as he moved closer and the illumination improved he could see the domed upper portion and the "stalk" upon which it appeared to rest more as a static structure (no flopping or undulation).

Once he could make out the evenly spaced windows-that-weren't-windows around the rim of the dome / cap I suppose the impression of a rigid static structure was firmly in place.

I'm still trying to settle on an interpretation of the colors / lights Edwards reported at the ends of the non-windows. Some accounts describe the colors / lights as dynamic - "as if" there were something moving or happening within the dome. However, it doesn't seem that Edwards ever clearly claimed to have witnessed movement inside the dome.
Click to expand...

There is a direct quote from Edwards stating that the lights looked as if there were a "color wheel" inside the object (not sure what was meant by this; a kaleidoscope sort of thing maybe? The sort of wheel used to illuminate 1960s aluminium Christmas trees?) and also that the lights were dazzlingly bright.

One thing I was wondering is where exactly was the sun while all this was going on? The sources talk about full sunlight by the time the object departed, but low in the east, it would surely have appeared almost behind the object to Edwards, looking at the aerial photos. Sunrise would have been at about 7am at that time of year in Tuscumbia, as far as I can make out.
 
Last edited:
BS3 said:
There is a direct quote from Edwards stating that the lights looked as if there were a "color wheel" inside the object (not sure what was meant by this; a kaleidoscope sort of thing maybe? The sort of wheel used to illuminate 1960s aluminium Christmas trees?) and also that the lights were dazzlingly bright.
Click to expand...
Speaking as someone who was around back then, I can attest a color wheel would be a rotating disk with (usually) four colored transparencies in front of a floodlight. Exactly what was used for those aluminium trees.
 
BS3 said:
... One thing I was wondering is where exactly was the sun while all this was going on? The sources talk about full sunlight by the time the object departed, but low in the east, it would surely have appeared almost behind the object to Edwards, looking at the aerial photos. Sunrise would have been at about 7am at that time of year in Tuscumbia, as far as I can make out.
Click to expand...

Here's the sunrise-related data for Tuscumbia on 14 February 1967 ...
Sunrise was at 0702, and the sun would have risen over the horizon at circa 106 degrees (east southeast; ESE).
Civil twilight [1] had begun at 0634.
SOURCE: https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/@7165457?month=2&year=1967

Edwards' vantage point on the object would have been oriented more or less directly toward the sun(-rise).

[1]
Civil Twilight:
Begins in the morning, or ends in the evening, when the geometric center of the sun is 6 degrees below the horizon. Therefore morning civil twilight begins when the geometric center of the sun is 6 degrees below the horizon, and ends at sunrise. ... Under these conditions absent fog or other restrictions, the brightest stars and planets can be seen, the horizon and terrestrial objects can be discerned, and in many cases, artificial lighting is not needed.
Click to expand...
https://www.weather.gov/lmk/twilight-types
 
ChasFink said:
Speaking as someone who was around back then, I can attest a color wheel would be a rotating disk with (usually) four colored transparencies in front of a floodlight. Exactly what was used for those aluminium trees.
Click to expand...
B3ADC956-11EA-4FCC-BAF3-89857FC2D549.jpeg

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/hol...age-for-more-information--132504414007949372/

The UFO was also tree-like in appearance, was he experiencing a waking dream influenced by these fantastic new Christmas trees? Or was that how his brain interpreted something completely alien? Apparently the reason our life ‘flashes before our eyes’ in a life-or-death situation is that our brain frantically searches our memory for a previous such experience and how best to react. So was his brain remembering parachutes and illuminated Christmas as it struggled to comprehend what he was seeing…?
 
Last edited:
This all makes me wonder about two things that have applicability to most UFO accounts.

First, what makes someone stop rationalizing a mundane explanation that they originally had? If Edwards first thought it was a parachute, exactly what made him (despite the silky appearance, etc.) stop having that idea and trying to find mundane reasons for the anomalous details? Did he consider that the movement of the "penguins" may have been the wind blowing around straps on sacks or arms on parachute dummies, simulating life like those silly blowup things you see at car washes and grand openings? Could a sense that "something strange" is going on lead him to interpret, for example, bad aim and a strong wind as a pressure field?

Second, why do we never get clarification of the analogies witnesses make? When Edwards said the lights were like a color wheel, did he mean exactly like a color wheel: color changes with a "wipe" of a small dark band (the wheel's struts), colors similar to known color wheels, changes happening at color wheel speed? Or was he just making a broad comparison to a known thing?

If UFO investigators asked these kinds of skeptical yet open minded questions, we might be able to separate the wheat from the chaff more easily.
 
Paul_Exeter said:
The UFO was also tree-like in appearance, was he experiencing a waking dream influenced by these fantastic new Christmas trees?
Click to expand...

Artificial / aluminum Xmas trees weren't all that new as of 1967. In fact, their popularity was past its peak as of 1967.
Aluminum Christmas trees were first commercially manufactured sometime around 1955, remained popular into the 1960s, and were manufactured into the 1970s. ...
As the mid-1960s passed, the aluminum Christmas tree began to fall out of favor, with many thrown away or relegated to basements and attics. ... The airing of A Charlie Brown Christmas in 1965 has been credited with ending the era of the aluminum tree, ... and by 1967 their time had almost completely passed.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_Christmas_tree

The rotating color wheels were introduced around the same time as the aluminum trees themselves (mid- to late-1950s) because lights couldn't be hung on the trees themselves (fire hazard).

Paul_Exeter said:
So was his brain remembering parachutes and illuminated Christmas as it struggled to comprehend what he was seeing…?
Click to expand...

Color wheels illuminated the entire tree. The colors and color dynamics he described were limited to the evenly spaced "windows" around the bottom rim of the object's dome.

If he had been interpreting the entire mushroom-shaped object as analogous to an aluminum Xmas "tree", why didn't he describe the entire structure changing colors?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BS3
EnolaGaia said:
Artificial / aluminum Xmas trees weren't all that new as of 1967. In fact, their popularity was past its peak as of 1967.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_Christmas_tree

The rotating color wheels were introduced around the same time as the aluminum trees themselves (mid- to late-1950s) because lights couldn't be hung on the trees themselves (fire hazard).



Color wheels illuminated the entire tree. The colors and color dynamics he described were limited to the evenly spaced "windows" around the bottom rim of the object's dome.

If he had been interpreting the entire mushroom-shaped object as analogous to an aluminum Xmas "tree", why didn't he describe the entire structure changing colors?
Click to expand...
My perspective on this is that of a guy was a simple rural farmer in a small, isolated community and not someone from the wealthy commuter belt ltrying to keep with up the Joneses. He quite probably cut down his own Xmas tree every year, as did everyone else in his community: why buy an artificial tree when they are growing outside your front door? Quite likely he didn’t have a colour tv either, so it is possible he had only seen an artificial tree in a cinema or a rare trip to a department store. So it not unreasonable to speculate illuminated artificial trees were ‘new’ to him.

It was then this memory (of the tree) that was triggered when seeing the alien/inexplicable lights or did it feature in his waking dream state? We now know the space penguins were too tall for the gap he reported under the main body of the craft, so he was clearly a bit confused.

That he described the space penguins as a colour other that white is worthy of note given how deeply divided Missouri had been on racial lines up until the 1960s:

https://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/exhibits/quest/staff/1960
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BS3
Now, the question is: are there parachutes that feature anything like these 'windows' or openings around the lower edge?

The MC1-1C and MC1-1B parachutes in fact do have openings; the former dates from the 1980s, but the latter is from an earlier date (and is based on a 1950s design).

Could the low sun pass through openings on a parachute and give the impression of lighted portholes? It's a bit of a stretch but just plausible, maybe.
 
BS3 said:
Now, the question is: are there parachutes that feature anything like these 'windows' or openings around the lower edge?

The MC1-1C and MC1-1B parachutes in fact do have openings; the former dates from the 1980s, but the latter is from an earlier date (and is based on a 1950s design).

Could the low sun pass through openings on a parachute and give the impression of lighted portholes? It's a bit of a stretch but just plausible, maybe.
Click to expand...
62EA6A8A-A296-4C4A-8ED1-0BAD9F85C031.jpeg

A Google search for “MC1-1C”came up with this compelling image, although no date of manufacture:

https://magam-safety.com/products/1424/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BS3
Paul_Exeter said:
... That he described the space penguins as a colour other that white is worthy of note given how deeply divided Missouri had been on racial lines up until the 1960s:
https://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/exhibits/quest/staff/1960
Click to expand...

I doubt that had any bearing on this case. Strictly speaking, Edwards never described the figures as being definitely humanoid in the first place. Second, the figures' color was consistently stated to be very similar or identical to that of the object (gray-green; greenish).
 
BS3 said:
Now, the question is: are there parachutes that feature anything like these 'windows' or openings around the lower edge?
The MC1-1C and MC1-1B parachutes in fact do have openings; the former dates from the 1980s, but the latter is from an earlier date (and is based on a 1950s design).
Could the low sun pass through openings on a parachute and give the impression of lighted portholes? It's a bit of a stretch but just plausible, maybe.
Click to expand...

I've been wondering about that ... Openings around the lower rim of a parachute are common.

Edwards claimed these evenly-spaced oblong window-like openings were the source of bright light that moved (oscillated; shimmered) and / or changed colors. The incident accounts don't enumerate the colors or range of colors seen through these openings.

As noted earlier, Edwards was facing eastward toward the rising sun. According to some of the accounts the scene was fully illuminated by the time he'd approached closest to the object (the vantage point at which his descriptions of the portals / lights are noted). There's no mention of bright lights emanating from the object up to this point. All this suggests the light effect(s) could have been correlated with the rising sun.

Now look at this broader aerial view of the scene ...

CE-BroaderView.jpg

Looking eastward from his position(s) during the sighting, Edwards' horizon was completely forested. The foliage was a mixture of smaller, scrubby trees / bushes interspersed with taller trees. This photo from the museum website illustrates the foliage bordering the open field:

Location-Claude-UFO.jpg

There seems to be no question that the object was back-lit by the rising sun. If one considers the bright lights to have been the rising sun's light visible through openings (or translucent portions) of the object, it seems to me the lights' movements Edwards described could have been caused - or augmented - by sunlight shining through the bordering foliage.

His allusions to multiple / shifting colors would then imply refraction of the back-lighting, and this would be more understandable if the portals / windows / openings were translucent rather than open holes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top