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

Space Penguins Of Tuscumbia, Missouri (1967)

Tuscumbia is situated roughly 20 (or so) miles southwest of Jefferson City, Missouri. In his 2001 compendium The UFO Evidence, Vol. II, Richard Hall associated this incident with Jefferson City:
Feb.14, 1967; Jefferson City, MO
7:00 a.m. CE-III. A disc-shaped object was seen resting on a shaft in a field. Small beings were reportedly moving around rapidly beneath it. They disappeared behind the shaft, the object rocked back and forth, took off, and sped away. (The UFO Evidence, Vol. II, p. 327)
SALVAGED FROM THE WAYBACK MACHINE:
https://web.archive.org/web/20061128114154/http://www.nicap.org/waves/1967fullrep.htm
 
Here's a summary of Ted Phillips' initial investigation for APRO / MUFON ...
Date: February 14 1967
Time: 0700A

Claude Edwards, a 64-year old farmer, saw a gray-green dome shaped object about 15 feet wide in his fields; he thought at first it was a parachute, but as he neared it he could see that it was resting on a shaft about 18' wide that extended downward from its base. Around the edge of the dome were a number of bright-multicolored lights of oblong shape. Beneath the object were visible several entities less than a meter tall, also gray-green in color, moving about rapidly, with quick moving "lever or arms," very wide-set eyes, and no visible legs. He also noted a protuberance where the nose and mouth would have been. The witness walked to within 30 feet and threw two stones at the object, which bounced off an invisible wall between him and the object. Walking up to within 15 feet, he was able to feel the pressure of this invisible barrier. The surface of the object was seamless, like gray-green silk. By this time the little creatures had disappeared inside the object, and it rocked back and forth several times, then took off silently, disappearing towards the northeast within seconds. He further described the creatures as appearing "like a penguin, not human without a visible neck." The object, "it just looked like a big shell, grayish-green in color. There were still ground traces at the site three months after the encounter. At the site the soil was extremely dehydrated in contrast with the surrounding soil. At the center there was a depression 20mm deep sloping to 30mm in the central area.

Humcat 1967-17
Source: Ted Phillips for Apro & Mufon
Type: B
SOURCE: Albert Rosales, Catalogue of Humanoid Cases 1965 - 2006, p. 468.
 
Some of the descriptions for this incident give confusing dimensions for the UFO Edwards witnessed. Here are the relevant passages from the report cited above, as well as his own sketch of how the object appeared.

111212_17_ClaudesSketchOfUFO.jpg
As the farmer got within 15 feet of the “mushroom” and the energetic entities, he was abruptly stopped by some sort of “force field.” Edwards claimed that he could neither see nor tangibly feel it, but that the pressure the invisible barrier emitted was unmistakable. ...

It was then that Edwards (who would eventually sketch the domed vehicle) got his first good look at the soundless, glinting vessel. He would later describe the metallic surface of the vehicle as being smooth and seamless, even going so far as to compare it to “shiny silk.” He estimated that the curved top of the craft was about 18 feet in diameter and nearly 8 feet at its apex. The stem like tube that was supporting the object was evidently made of the same material as the domed top and stood not much higher than the beings beneath it.

At this point the perplexed farmer could also discern evenly spaced oval portals…about 12 inches long and 12 inches apart, situated around the lower rim of the “saucer.” Edwards would insist that these portals did not seem to function as windows as he could see a dazzling array of colors radiating from each side of the ovals. The colored lights oscillated as if they were spinning behind the portals. Edwards described the craft:

“The object just looked like a big shell, grayish green looking outfit. And underneath there were oblong holes where the lights were coming out. They were so bright you couldn’t see when you got up there…as if a color wheel was turning inside the thing.” ...

Concerning the "stem" for the mushroom-shaped object ...
Phillips, who arrived to interview Edwards not long after the events in question, was able to photograph the effects this UFO had on the field, including the spot where the support tube had met the soil ...

Phillips explained:

“When I arrived at the site, the traces were still quite visible. It was one meter in diameter in a slightly irregular circle where the shaft had rested. The soil was extremely dehydrated in contrast with the surrounding soil.”
SOURCE: http://www.millercountymuseum.org/archives/111212.html
 
I was interested to read that, according to Phillips, Edwards would only give his account of the sighting on the strict condition that his name would not be used until after his death. This is another one of those cases where (on the face of it, anyway) there seems to be nothing about the witness that indicates why they would have reported such an experience, while the physical traces seem to suggest something happened.
 
I was interested to read that, according to Phillips, Edwards would only give his account of the sighting on the strict condition that his name would not be used until after his death. This is another one of those cases where (on the face of it, anyway) there seems to be nothing about the witness that indicates why they would have reported such an experience, while the physical traces seem to suggest something happened.
Agreed.

That UFO looks like a rather large toadstool. What does little people lore say about toadstalls?

“Anyone who stepped accidentally into a ring could be abducted by the fairies.”

https://britishfairies.wordpress.com/tag/toadstools/
 
I like this one, because of the alien nature of the 'visitors'. Erect biped animals are very rare in the evolution of life on earth; we only really have hominins and penguinoids, all other bipedal animals (ostriches, dinosaurs) have horizontal spinal columns suspended between pairs of legs.

If we ever meet a sentient alien species with a vertical spine, I'd expect them to look at least as different to humans as penguins do.
 
One thing I don't get is that the written information suggests that the physical trace matches the central 'stalk' on which the object was resting, but the photo in the museum / Cryptopia articles shows a physical hole in the ground made by a "landing arm" - something I don't recall seeing in any of the descriptions.

I assume Phillips must have written the case up somewhere, perhaps for MUFON?
 
... I assume Phillips must have written the case up somewhere, perhaps for MUFON?

Phillips was sometimes cited as representing "for APRO and MUFON." If he generated a detailed and substantial report my guess is that it would have originally appeared in one of those groups' journals.

I've not yet been able to track down a copy - or even a specific citation - for such a contemporary report appearing in either group's publications.
 
In a 2005 article within his "Physical Traces" series in the MUFON UFO Journal Phillips published this summary of the Tuscumbia case:
Missouri
021467, 0700, MO, Tuscumbia
- Farmer Claude Edwards, 67, was walking toward a barn when he noted that his cows were all looking toward a point in the field to the east.

He saw, through scattered trees, a circular greenish object, curved at the top, with a flattish bottom. He could see numerous openings around the lower rim, with brilliant light coming from inside the openings and constantly changing colors.

He walked to within 15 feet of the object, which was resting on a cylindrical central shaft, and encountered a "pressure" he could not get through.The object was 18 feet in diameter and about 6 feet thick.

Under the objects were numerous small beings of a greenish color moving rapidly around.

He backed up about 10 feet and watched from 25 feet. With the sun rising and the area fully illuminated, the object rocked back and took off at a low angle. There was no sound.

At the site I found a circular depression which was dehydrated and baked, although the surrounding soil was wet and muddy. There was a hole at the center of the depression into which a device had apparently been inserted.
Physical Traces by Ted Phillips
October 2005 MUFON UFO Journal, pp. 17-18.
https://docshare.tips/docshare_58f74161ee34355a37992519.html
 
I like this one, because of the alien nature of the 'visitors'. Erect biped animals are very rare in the evolution of life on earth; we only really have hominins and penguinoids, all other bipedal animals (ostriches, dinosaurs) have horizontal spinal columns suspended between pairs of legs.

If we ever meet a sentient alien species with a vertical spine, I'd expect them to look at least as different to humans as penguins do.
Maybe Earth Penguins from the future ?
 
In a 2005 article within his "Physical Traces" series in the MUFON UFO Journal Phillips published this summary of the Tuscumbia case:

Physical Traces by Ted Phillips
October 2005 MUFON UFO Journal, pp. 17-18.
https://docshare.tips/docshare_58f74161ee34355a37992519.html

OK, that seems to explain the hole in the ground, anyway.

I wonder if the lack of earlier accounts might relate to Edwards' insistence that his name and location were kept private (I guess this is also why Hall catalogued it as "Jefferson City"). It seems like a very interesting case for all kinds of reasons but, as a single witness experience over 50 years ago, I can't imagine there is much that can be done with it now.
 
The incident seems to me to have a lot of dreamlike qualities (particularly the 'force field', which is purely a science fiction motif rather than anything in nature as far as we know). But then there are the physical traces; Edwards seems to have even been able to point to the rock that he threw.

The fact that the creatures seemed constrained to the area under the 'craft' itself is interesting and mirrors a couple of other cases I have read about. As so often with these sorts of experiences, their behaviour makes no sense; neither do they fit any particular pattern, although the observation that they had some similarities to the Kinnula entities is quite perceptive. The indistinctness of certain details (the 'arms'; the feet, or lack of them) emphasises the dreamlike qualities and again, has parallels in other cases.

I agree that traditional fairy lore seems almost as good a frame of reference as flying saucers in this instance.
 
One thing I don't get is that the written information suggests that the physical trace matches the central 'stalk' on which the object was resting, but the photo in the museum / Cryptopia articles shows a physical hole in the ground made by a "landing arm" - something I don't recall seeing in any of the descriptions. ...

That confused me as well ... My guess is that the text is correct and the caption (supplied by the museum) is erroneous.

Another issue concerns the size of the "stalk" (shaft; whatever) supporting the object. Phillips is quoted in the Rosales catalogue document as claiming the stalk was " 18' " (18 ft.) wide. This couldn't be correct, insofar as the same text claims the upper "cap" portion was only 15 feet wide.

The museum site transcription shows the photo of a hole and quotes Phillips as claiming the "trace(s)" measured 1m in diameter, without mentioning the hole. This left it ambiguous as to whether the hole itself was the extent of this "trace", and the hole in the photo didn't strike me as being 1m wide.

Phillips' later (2005) description clarified the "traces" he'd found:
... At the site I found a circular depression which was dehydrated and baked, although the surrounding soil was wet and muddy. There was a hole at the center of the depression into which a device had apparently been inserted. ...

As such, it seems the 1m diameter measurement referred to the overall depression and circular area of dehydrated soil. I've not (yet) seen an account that states the central hole's diameter.
 
I know that Wyndham’s1957 novel ’The Midwich Cuckoos’ featured a UFO force field that prevented humans from getting close that particular alien craft, so the idea was out there.

He describes the exterior as “silky smooth” (like a mushroom) and the manner of its departure (two tugs to one side then swift elevation is akin to someone gently harvesting a mushroom so as to leave the root, so possibly irrelevant but that‘s quite a lot of mushroom analogies

Distortion Theory and/or fairy/little people lore for me, perhaps they are one and the same?
 
The only obvious thing I can think of with some visual similarity to what Edwards reported is a parachute (green colour, general appearance) but it seems that this is exactly what Edwards initially thought it might be, and obviously this does not easily fit with everything else that was reported.
 
The only obvious thing I can think of with some visual similarity to what Edwards reported is a parachute (green colour, general appearance) but it seems that this is exactly what Edwards initially thought it might be, and obviously this does not easily fit with everything else that was reported.
Good reasoning. Could the blurry, fast moving space penguins be some canisters caught under the parachute being blown around in the wind? But as you state, that doesn’t explain factors such as the lights. However, the manner of departure was “two tugs and then swiftly away” which is how a parachute (or some sort of military parachute device) would behave in the wind if it had snagged agains5 something on the ground and then broke free.

Do we know about his eyesight and the weather conditions that day? If there was no wind is it possible it contained helium?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BS3
Good reasoning. Could the blurry, fast moving space penguins be some canisters caught under the parachute being blown around in the wind? But as you state, that doesn’t explain factors such as the lights. However, the manner of departure was “two tugs and then swiftly away” which is how a parachute (or some sort of military parachute device) would behave in the wind if it had snagged agains5 something on the ground and then broke free.

Do we know about his eyesight and the weather conditions that day? If there was no wind is it possible it contained helium?

The 'two tugs' are partly what made me think of a parachute, or perhaps a balloon. I suppose you could imagine the 'entities' were in some way a misperceived part of the object itself given that they don't seem to have strayed beyond the overhang of the 'saucer'; moreover they exited by going behind the stalk to some implied entrance, rather than being actually seen to enter the object.

Information on the weather conditions and the like seems a bit lacking; we know it was cold. Wind strength and direction would be helpful.
 
Do we have any number on the entities beyond 'several'? They seem to have been a sort of drab green colour - much like military equipment in fact - and they have a general sack- or pack-like shape, with no visible feet and 'arms' that could perhaps be interpreted as straps waving in the wind. Most images of military supply drops I can find seem to be crated. A loose parachute with a number of packs tangled up beneath it? Again, wind details would have been very helpful. As for the lights and force field - no idea, except that perhaps Edwards wasn't fully awake that morning.
 
They seem to have been a sort of drab green colour - much like military equipment in fact - and they have a general sack- or pack-like shape, with no visible feet and 'arms' that could perhaps be interpreted as straps waving in the wind. Most images of military supply drops I can find seem to be crated. A loose parachute with a number of packs tangled up beneath it?
Something reminds me of the 'Rupert' paradummies used during WWII. They were small, roughly humanoid, and green. Also accompanied by parachutes.

413px-Rupert-02-800.jpg


No clue as to why these objects might have been in 1967 Missouri.
 
... Information on the weather conditions and the like seems a bit lacking; we know it was cold. Wind strength and direction would be helpful.

Agreed ... Weather Underground has no historical data for Tuscumbia at all, and it has no 1967 historical data for either of the two closest cities (Jefferson City and Columbia).

Our only clue to wind direction (assuming the object departed "with" the wind) comes from the vague descriptions of its departure. The museum account states:
According to Edwards, the flying mushroom soared skyward at tremendous speed before it leveled off and began heading toward St. Elizabeth, which is located southeast of Tuscumbia.
St. Elizabeth is in fact east - actually a shade north of east - from Tuscumbia.

The entry in the Rosales catalogue (drawn from Phillips' report) states the object departed to the northeast.
 
NOTE: If the "mushroom" had been a wind-blown object, where could it have arrived from? The Tuscumbia area is only circa 8 - 10 miles east of Lake of the Ozarks - a very large impounded lake and park / resort / recreation area. As far as I can tell the lake's infrastructures (dam(s), hydroelectric facilities) were under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers at the time.

Speaking of the Army ...

Tuscumbia is only circa 20 - 25 miles NNW of the extensive Fort Leonard Wood - a large training and headquarters base that hosted the Corps of Engineers, the Military Police Corps, and the Chemical Corps.
 
... the manner of departure was “two tugs and then swiftly away” which is how a parachute (or some sort of military parachute device) would behave in the wind if it had snagged agains5 something on the ground and then broke free. ...

Where are you getting the "tug" bit (which implies pulling away from the ground and vertical movement while still anchored to the ground)?

Every account I've seen refers to the object rocking or tilting immediately before rising into the air. The museum version states the object tilted toward Edwards twice before rising off the ground during a third "lurch." The cursory Hall summary states the object rocked "back and forth", but doesn't indicate how many times this occurred. The Rosales summary (based on Phillips) claims the object rocked back and forth "several times." Phillips' own "Physical Traces" note (2005) states the object "rocked back" (i.e., away from Edwards).

None of these accounts describe the object's movement as "tugging" (pulling upward from the ground).
 
Another discrepancy bearing on the evidence ... The county museum account doesn't seem to match Phillips' own account (as quoted by Rosales) regarding how soon after the actual incident Phillips arrived and examined the alleged location of the object.

County Museum Account:
Phillips, who arrived to interview Edwards not long after the events in question, was able to photograph the effects this UFO had on the field, including the spot where the support tube had met the soil ...
(Emphasis Added)

Rosales Catalogue Summary (Based on Phillips):
There were still ground traces at the site three months after the encounter. At the site the soil was extremely dehydrated in contrast with the surrounding soil. At the center there was a depression 20mm deep sloping to 30mm in the central area.
(Emphasis Added)

Here are the points affected by a possible 3-month lapse of time ...

(1) Phillips saw a circular patch of noticeably dehydrated soil with a hole in its center. No account I've seen mentions whether Edwards confirmed the existence of this noticeable patch of soil - or the hole in its center - at or immediately following the time of the incident.

(2) If Phillips didn't examine the patch until 3 months after the incident, the soil conditions he observed don't necessarily mean much. A 3 months' delay implies Phillips didn't visit until May - following two months of typically rainy spring weather in that region.
 
Another discrepancy bearing on the evidence ... The county museum account doesn't seem to match Phillips' own account (as quoted by Rosales) regarding how soon after the actual incident Phillips arrived and examined the alleged location of the object.

County Museum Account:

(Emphasis Added)

Rosales Catalogue Summary (Based on Phillips):

(Emphasis Added)

Here are the points affected by a possible 3-month lapse of time ...

(1) Phillips saw a circular patch of noticeably dehydrated soil with a hole in its center. No account I've seen mentions whether Edwards confirmed the existence of this noticeable patch of soil - or the hole in its center - at or immediately following the time of the incident.

(2) If Phillips didn't examine the patch until 3 months after the incident, the soil conditions he observed don't necessarily mean much. A 3 months' delay implies Phillips didn't visit until May - following two months of typically rainy spring weather in that region.

I agree, if the delay was as long as 3 months then the value of the ground traces is considerably lessened. It may be that Phillips was proposing that the soil had perhaps been compressed and heated which might have made it more resistant to turning into mud, but it's not particularly clear how he is proposing the ground trace was formed or what it might mean.

I'm also interested how the story got to Phillips in the first place. Who did Edwards tell, and when?
 
... I'm also interested how the story got to Phillips in the first place. Who did Edwards tell, and when?

The only clue I've seen so far is this bit from the Miller County Museum account:

In fact, when Phillips was introduced to Edwards through his brother, the farmer refused to utter a word about the incident until the young researcher pledged to protect the farmer’s anonymity, which he did until Edwards’ death.
http://www.millercountymuseum.org/archives/111212.html

I can read this to mean either Edwards' brother or Phillips' brother. Even then, this mention of a brother may refer to contact made when Phillips came looking for Edwards rather than someone's brother being involved in disseminating Edwards' story (and attracting Phillips' attention) in the first place.
 
Aha ... Ted Phillips was local. He was a native of Sedalia, Missouri - an approximately 67-mile drive away. Here's an excerpt from his obit:
Theodore "Ted" R. Phillips, Jr., Reeds Spring son of Theodore and Lucille (Curtiss) Phillips, Sr. was born Jan. 20, 1942, in Sedalia and departed this life on March 10, 2020 at the age of 78.
Ted had been a resident of the area for 39 years, moving from Sedalia. He had worked as a civil engineer for the State Highway Department. Ted was well known for his scientific study of the UFO phenomenon. He worked with The Center for UFO Studies in Chicago, Illinois and Mufon Research Group in Missouri. ...
https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/sedaliademocrat/name/theodore-phillips-obituary?pid=195710763
 
Where are you getting the "tug" bit (which implies pulling away from the ground and vertical movement while still anchored to the ground)?

Every account I've seen refers to the object rocking or tilting immediately before rising into the air. The museum version states the object tilted toward Edwards twice before rising off the ground during a third "lurch." The cursory Hall summary states the object rocked "back and forth", but doesn't indicate how many times this occurred. The Rosales summary (based on Phillips) claims the object rocked back and forth "several times." Phillips' own "Physical Traces" note (2005) states the object "rocked back" (i.e., away from Edwards).

None of these accounts describe the object's movement as "tugging" (pulling upward from the ground).
Yes, tilt, not tug, my mistake. Still how you might examine a mushroom/toad stall before picking it (I am thinking here of fairy lore) or how a parachute might behave as it frees itself.

Also I have not lost sight of the dazzling lights he reported
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BS3
Tuscumbia is situated roughly 20 (or so) miles southwest of Jefferson City, Missouri. In his 2001 compendium The UFO Evidence, Vol. II, Richard Hall associated this incident with Jefferson City: ...

I find this interesting ... Phillips had compiled a listing of humanoid sightings / encounters which Hall apparently used in assembling his 1975(?) UFO Evidence book(s). This is presumably the source for the excerpt I posted earlier.

However ... Phillips also compiled a separate listing of incidents for which there was physical evidence:

Physical Traces Associated with UFO Sightings
CUFOS, 1975
PDF file accessible at: http://www.cufos.org/books/Physical_Traces.pdf

I can find no mention of the Edwards / Tuscumbia incident (even if anonymized) in this physical traces listing, even though some of the listed incidents involved no more physical traces than the ones Phillips found on Edwards' farm.
 
Back
Top