Agreed, it is the fear they experienced in addition to the unusual dimensions and lack of movement or craft they strongly suggest to me it wasn't a hoax or simple misidentification. It wasn't a fleeting glimpse either, as the truck was climbing up the hill. However, they were on the opposite side of the road to them so how much light did those eight headlights actually cast upon them as they passed their location?That's an interesting idea and might explain the 'aerials. The reddish-orange colour threw me a bit but that could be one explanation for it.
Assuming accurate reporting by Pugh on this point, the men do seem to have been extremely frightened. I had thought about road construction equipment parked up for the night but in all honesty, you'd think Lloyd would have been familiar with such sights. I do wish that Holiday had attempted to get a sketch from the witness as it's really very hard to visualise what the men thought they were seeing.
The article quoted says 'huge figures about seven feet high and correspondingly wide.'It is difficult to visualise someone seven foot tall and seven foot wide and without legs, isn't that essentially a square with a 'head' on top, or did they mean the shoulders were seven foot wide but then tapered to the chest?
Does look somewhat like what they described, however, I can definitely remember the primary witness describing how "so incredibly broad" they were or words to that effect. This may have been in the Paget book or Pugh & Holiday, I will check but it does seem the original interview described them as seven feet wide.The article quoted says 'huge figures about seven feet high and correspondingly wide.'
I take that to mean they were a shape which corresponded to a humanoid figure, so were somewhat narrower than they were tall. It doesn't mean they were seven foot wide.
Note that a tall human wearing a 'celluloid' costume could easily be seven foot tall once you take into account the headpiece. These could have been construction workers wearing protective clothing, or people in biohazard suits responding to a dangerous goods incident. Or just a training exercise.
an anti-chemical attack suit, seemingly made of 'celluloid'.
![]()
Or people in fancy dress, or transparent rain gear, or even a pair of badly made scarecrows.
Good fit bar the fact the military have never been fond of bright reflective colours as you highlight, other than on military vehicles whilst being used on British roads in peacetimeIs there any aspect of military equipment that might explain the apparent shoulder-mounted 'aerials'?
The Clansman 349 radio in a holster might do, although these aerials aren't shiny I think.
View attachment 69792
I was standing still watching him and he was standing still watching me and he was wriggling his fingers like this
I was riding out in 1978 and we had nothing like this. The best we could do was white leg bandages and lights. We didn't have fluorescent riding wear or horsewear.Does look somewhat like what they described, however, I can definitely remember the primary witness describing how "so incredibly broad" they were or words to that effect. This may have been in the Paget book or Pugh & Holiday, I will check but it does seem the original interview described them as seven feet wide.
I keep thinking of the reflective material now used with horses for protection from traffic at night:
https://barnstapleequestriansupplie...rdin-cadence-reflective-hi-viz-riding-jackets
A horse wearing one of these would give you seven foot tall and seven foot wide and then arguably the rider in their reflective jackets were the "Busbie hats, with the parts of the horse and rider not wearing reflective gear not visible (hence no legs).
However, I am not at all certain such material was available and in use for this purpose in 1978.View attachment 69793
Thanks...!I was riding out in 1978 and we had nothing like this. The best we could do was white leg bandages and lights. We didn't have fluorescent riding wear or horsewear.
In fact, as far as I remember, we were discouraged from ever riding at night, because there wasn't the tech available to make us visible, particularly if riding a dark coloured beast. And most riding wear was also dark.Thanks...!
The article quoted says 'huge figures about seven feet high and correspondingly wide.'
I take that to mean they were a shape which corresponded to a humanoid figure, so were somewhat narrower than they were tall. It doesn't mean they were seven foot wide.
Note that a tall human wearing a 'celluloid' costume could easily be seven foot tall once you take into account the headpiece. These could have been construction workers wearing protective clothing, or people in biohazard suits responding to a dangerous goods incident. Or just a training exercise.
an anti-chemical attack suit, seemingly made of 'celluloid'.
![]()
Or people in fancy dress, or transparent rain gear, or even a pair of badly made scarecrows.
It really as does make sense: location, chemical suit and respirator.Now, another Dyfed Enigma case did put me strongly in mind of an image from this thread;
This is the Steve Taylor CE3 on 13 March 1977 on the boundary of Brawdy airbase. Here the entity was said to be dressed in "a suit on which seemed to be transparent but wasn't. I can't explain that". Well, how about transparent anti chemical gear over military clothing?
The figure also had "a sort of breathing-apparatus thing like divers have (cutting out Pugh's usual leading questions here) I didn't notice any hair, you see. So he could have had a helmet on. And there were large eyes". So perhaps a respirator, with the characteric box at the front, with the large round eyes (which Taylor said were like those of a "fish") suggested by the respirator's eyeholes?