Space Penguins Of Tuscumbia, Missouri (1967)

[BS3]

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 ...

View attachment 56684​

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:

View attachment 56685​

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.

The other thing to consider is whether, given the time of year, there could have been ice or frost that might have contributed to the kind of multi-coloured, sparkling light Edwards appears to be describing.

The Cryptopia account talks about Edwards walking over ice-covered ground, but I have no confidence the author hasn't simply inserted this for a bit of colour, since it doesn't appear in Phillips' accounts (that I've seen so far, anyway). Phillips talks about mud, but is he describing conditions 3 months later? It's not very clear.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Yes - any kind of ice or frost (whether within the scene or encrusted on the object) might help explain the "prismatic" effects Edwards cited.

Until I see or find any clear specification of timeframe for Phillips' visit my working assumption is that Phillips' own claim regarding "three months later" is the best available evidence of the time lapse from incident to investigation.

 

[Paul_Exeter]

A parradummy:

https://en-academic.com/pictures/enwiki/80/PD-Pack-01-800.jpg

Note the colour, head shape and lack of neck

 

[BS3]

A parradummy:

View attachment 56719


https://en-academic.com/pictures/enwiki/80/PD-Pack-01-800.jpg

Note the colour, head shape and lack of neck

It's a very good match, if you could think of the 'legs' folded underneath.

Was anything of this kind ever used in the US? I know that another kind of parachute dummy is often suggested to have contributed to people's supposed memories of the 'crash' at Roswell.

 

[Paul_Exeter]

It's a very good match, if you could think of the 'legs' folded underneath.

Was anything of this kind ever used in the US? I know that another kind of parachute dummy is often suggested to have contributed to people's supposed memories of the 'crash' at Roswell.

That would also explain how the space penguins were taller than the gap under the object: they had flexible legs that allowed them to be blown around by the wind and at times extending to their full length but at an angel to the ground (pretty much how he described them moving around)

 

[BS3]

I've found a site detailing the history of paradummy use.

They still seem to have been around in the 1960s, including possible CIA use, but may have been a more realistic type by then.

However, I do see (with reference to @EnolaGaia's comment about the Army Corps of Engineers) that it was the Army Corps of Engineers who developed the new designs.

 

[EnolaGaia]

It's a very good match, if you could think of the 'legs' folded underneath.
Was anything of this kind ever used in the US?

Yes ... The PD-Pack inflatable dummy illustrated in Paul_Exeter's post was a later-generation American WW2 decoy.

The original 1943 "Oscar" dummies were rigid and only 18 inches tall. Here are photos illustrating the Oscar figures in profile ...

SOURCE: http://web.archive.org/web/20090609...et/~1.elliott/firstamericantestparadummy.html

The Oscar dummies are the best match for profile (per Phillips' (?) original sketches) and Edwards' specific estimate of ground clearance beneath the object's upper portion.

However ... The Oscar dummies didn't make it into mass production after testing indicated they weren't effective at fooling observers in daylight. Even though they were designed to mimic Army paratroopers, the Oscar dummies were developed and tested by the Navy, not the Army. The Oscars' parachute was only 6 feet in diameter.

 

[BS3]

The "PD pack" dummies (which came with an explosive booby trap!) look to me to be closest to the kind of thing Edwards reported - not that we need to fit exactly to what the witness says they saw. However there is no evidence any were kept after the war; the page linked above said that their designer was unable to find any and had to have them recreated for museum displays.

Having said that I think we can say that any sort of bag or pack of about the right size might produce the effect. The key thing for me is that the 'creatures' seem to have been seen only beneath the 'object', and they were a similar (or the same) colour as the object, plus the witness didn't explicitly see them leave or enter. This makes me suspect they were actually part of the object in some way.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... Having said that I think we can say that any sort of bag or pack of about the right size might produce the effect. The key thing for me is that the 'creatures' seem to have been seen only beneath the 'object', and they were a similar (or the same) colour as the object, plus the witness didn't explicitly see them leave or enter. This makes me suspect they were actually part of the object in some way.

Agreed ... Once I saw the illustrations from (what may well be ... ) Phillips' original published report I was less convinced the "penguins" were independent figures moving on their own. Some sort of bags or flaps - perhaps dangling from the dome's underside - would explain these shapes. Also recall Edwards was looking toward the new sunrise, and he would have been challenged to make out more than these figures' silhouettes.

 

[EnolaGaia]

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

I failed to mention three other points specific to this 1971(and potentially original) Phillips account ...

- Phillips wrote that there were "no ground markings although the ground was muddy at the site." What, then, was it Phillips was supposedly illustrating with the widely-disseminated photo of a 1m wide area of dehydrated soil with a small hole in its center?

- Does this claim of no ground markings represent what Phillips was told about the immediate aftermath of February incident, or does it relate to (and conflict with) what he said he saw when he visited Edwards' farm up to 3 months later?

- This is the only account I've seen that states the "stalk" portion of the object retracted into the main / larger portion as it departed.

 

[BS3]

I failed to mention three other points specific to this 1971(and potentially original) Phillips account ...

- Phillips wrote that there were "no ground markings although the ground was muddy at the site." What, then, was it Phillips was supposedly illustrating with the widely-disseminated photo of a 1m wide area of dehydrated soil with a small hole in its center?

- Does this claim of no ground markings represent what Phillips was told about the immediate aftermath of February incident, or does it relate to (and conflict with) what he said he saw when he visited Edwards' farm up to 3 months later?

- This is the only account I've seen that states the "stalk" portion of the object retracted into the main / larger portion as it departed.

I saw that "no ground markings" phrase and haven't been able to square it with the other accounts. Even if this refers to the immediate aftermath, rather than Phillips' visit, where did the hole in the ground come from? After all (penguins aside) the case is practically defined as a CE2 'physical trace' case: Phillips specialised in them.

Also, considering this is a single-source case (as far as we know; Edwards supposedly gave radio interviews too, so maybe there's something tucked away in the archives of a local paper somewhere) there's still a frustrating amount of variation and inconsistency.

 

[EnolaGaia]

I saw that "no ground markings" phrase and haven't been able to square it with the other accounts. Even if this refers to the immediate aftermath, rather than Phillips' visit, where did the hole in the ground come from? After all (penguins aside) the case is practically defined as a CE2 'physical trace' case: Phillips specialised in them. ...

Even when ground markings or traces are enumerated, there are differences between the text descriptions and the photograph. Speaking of which ... Here's the photo posted at the county museum website ...

SOURCE: http://www.millercountymuseum.org/archives/111212.html#photo_25​

As noted earlier, the museum text claims this photo was taken "not long after the events in question", and it states it was Phillips who "was able to photograph the effects this UFO had on the field." However, Phillips' own published text indicates it couldn't have been taken until circa 3 months after the incident. Additionally, the museum site caption states this hole was made "by one of the Landing Arms", even though no such landing arms (legs, whatever) were claimed / sketched by Edwards nor cited anywhere other than this single website's photo caption.

Here's what Phillips is documented as having written about the ground markings / evidence at various times ...

FSR Case Histories (1971; quite possibly identical to the 1969 APRO Bulletin report):

There were no ground markings although the ground was muddy at the time.

Humcat 1967-17 Entry (Source: Ted Phillips for APRO & MUFON; quoted in Albert Rosales, Catalogue of Humanoid Cases 1965 - 2006, p. 468.)

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.

This is the sole publication (we've seen to date) that states the traces were in place 3 months later and therefore suggests Phillips didn't visit the site until 3 months after the fact. In the context of other remarks here and elsewhere, the "depression" Phillips describes is the 1m diameter roughly circular patch of "dehydrated" soil. Phillips describes this depression as being 20mm deep around its perimeter and 30mm deep in its center. There's no mention of any hole anywhere. The hole in the picture is clearly deeper than the 10mm difference Phillips cites between the minimum and maximum depths for the overall depression.

Physical Traces by Ted Phillips (October 2005 MUFON UFO Journal, pp. 17-18.)

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.

It's thirty-eight years after the fact before there's any mention of the hole that was supposedly photographed "not long after the events in question." This is the first and only account (I've seen) that claims the soil was "baked" - i.e., subjected to apparent heating above and beyond (e.g., evaporative) dehydration / desiccation.

 

[BS3]

Even when ground markings or traces are enumerated, there are differences between the text descriptions and the photograph. Speaking of which ... Here's the photo posted at the county museum website ...

View attachment 56766
SOURCE: http://www.millercountymuseum.org/archives/111212.html#photo_25​

As noted earlier, the museum text claims this photo was taken "not long after the events in question", and it states it was Phillips who "was able to photograph the effects this UFO had on the field." However, Phillips' own published text indicates it couldn't have been taken until circa 3 months after the incident. Additionally, the museum site caption states this hole was made "by one of the Landing Arms", even though no such landing arms (legs, whatever) were claimed / sketched by Edwards nor cited anywhere other than this single website's photo caption.

Here's what Phillips is documented as having written about the ground markings / evidence at various times ...

FSR Case Histories (1971; quite possibly identical to the 1969 APRO Bulletin report):


Humcat 1967-17 Entry (Source: Ted Phillips for APRO & MUFON; quoted in Albert Rosales, Catalogue of Humanoid Cases 1965 - 2006, p. 468.)

This is the sole publication (we've seen to date) that states the traces were in place 3 months later and therefore suggests Phillips didn't visit the site until 3 months after the fact. In the context of other remarks here and elsewhere, the "depression" Phillips describes is the 1m diameter roughly circular patch of "dehydrated" soil. Phillips describes this depression as being 20mm deep around its perimeter and 30mm deep in its center. There's no mention of any hole anywhere. The hole in the picture is clearly deeper than the 10mm difference Phillips cites between the minimum and maximum depths for the overall depression.

Physical Traces by Ted Phillips (October 2005 MUFON UFO Journal, pp. 17-18.)

It's thirty-eight years after the fact before there's any mention of the hole that was supposedly photographed "not long after the events in question." This is the first and only account (I've seen) that claims the soil was "baked" - i.e., subjected to apparent heating above and beyond (e.g., evaporative) dehydration / desiccation.

And here's the thing: all three of Phillips' own descriptions contradict each other, never mind the accounts found online. This is despite Phillips being the original (and as far as we can see, only) field investigator. At no point - yet - have we had any discussion of weather conditions or other key information. It may be out there in Phillips' notes, but without it the argument that the object was not something simply blown there (eg a stray balloon or parachute, as Edwards originally thought it might be) is weakened.

Moreover, the language used by Phillips seems to betray a bias towards a particular interpretation straight away: "There was a hole at the center of the depression into which a device had apparently been inserted". Why a 'device'? In so many of these old cases you end up struggling with the preconceptions of the investigator.

 

[EnolaGaia]

And here's the thing: all three of Phillips' own descriptions contradict each other, never mind the accounts found online. This is despite Phillips being the original (and as far as we can see, only) field investigator. ...

Moreover, the language used by Phillips seems to betray a bias towards a particular interpretation straight away: "There was a hole at the center of the depression into which a device had apparently been inserted". Why a 'device'? In so many of these old cases you end up struggling with the preconceptions of the investigator.

Yep ... Agreed ... Given Phillips' (eventual) reputation as a discerning investigator dedicated to finding physical traces, I wondered whether the sketchy nature of this investigation may have been the result of its being his first field investigation. (Recall he was living not far from the scene in 1967.)

According to information I located on Phillips' UFO-related career, he began such investigations in 1964 (circa 2 - 3 years prior to the Tuscumbia incident).

 

[EnolaGaia]

Here's another thing I find odd about the Edwards / Tuscumbia incident ... No one seems to have put any effort into fleshing out the "pressure" / "force field" aspect of Edwards' story. The alleged deflection of the two rocks Edwards lobbed at the object is arguably the most remarkable or unique element in the story.

 

[BS3]

Here's another thing I find odd about the Edwards / Tuscumbia incident ... No one seems to have put any effort into fleshing out the "pressure" / "force field" aspect of Edwards' story. The alleged deflection of the two rocks Edwards lobbed at the object is arguably the most remarkable or unique element in the story.

It's particularly remarkable as (leaving aside 'implied' impossibilties such as UFOs without a sonic boom, etc) there is no mechanism we currently have to explain such a 'force field': it's pure science fiction. If we're looking for a mundane explanation we therefore have to suggest either a hoax or witness exaggeration, or some fairly remarkable form of misperception.

 

[maximus otter]

Here's another thing I find odd about the Edwards / Tuscumbia incident ... No one seems to have put any effort into fleshing out the "pressure" / "force field" aspect of Edwards' story. The alleged deflection of the two rocks Edwards lobbed at the object is arguably the most remarkable or unique element in the story.

Here’s a photo of one of the rocks allegedly thrown by Edwards (from the local museum’s website.) Unhelpfully, there’s no indication of scale, though it appears to be quite substantial:

Original caption: “Large rock in field thrown by Claude” [my emphasis]

From the same source:

“As the farmer got within 15 feet of the “mushroom” and the energetic entities, he was abruptly stopped by some sort of “force field.”

Anxiously, this rugged man of the land backed off about 10 feet, then hurled one of the rocks he had gathered at this immobile object. The rock bounced off the imperceptible barricade noiselessly and landed on the ground.

Edwards then threw his second rock with even more force, but this one just skipped over the object like a stone over water, before landing in the field behind the UFO…”

We infer that he threw two rocks, at least one of them “ large ”, from a range of about 25 feet.

What if they didn’t “bounce off” or “skip over” anything, but simply fell short or to one side of the artefact; and 64-year old Edwards - the acuity of whose eyesight, and need or otherwise for spectacles, is unclear - simply misinterpreted the results of his efforts?

maximus otter

 

[BS3]

Comparing it to the surrounding grass and the like, it certainly looks too large for a man in his 60s to throw an estimated 25 feet (15 feet to the object plus the additional 10 feet that Edwards supposedly 'backed off'). A small, conveniently shaped stone...maybe. But this part of the story doesn't seem very credible at face value.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Comparing it to the surrounding grass and the like, it certainly looks too large for a man in his 60s to throw an estimated 25 feet (15 feet to the object plus the additional 10 feet that Edwards supposedly 'backed off'). A small, conveniently shaped stone...maybe. But this part of the story doesn't seem very credible at face value.

Unless there's some really effective forced perspective involved, the stone in the photo is definitely too large to be thrown at any of the alleged or apparent distances claimed. Phillips' 1971 account (possibly his original report) claims Edwards threw both rocks from 30 feet away before advancing to hit the "pressure" at half that distance. Phillips' earliest reports (I've found to date ... ) claim Edwards threw the rocks while initially advancing on the object and before getting as close as 15 feet (and encountering the "pressure").

It's even more suspicious when you consider the fact some accounts claim Edwards picked up two stones while initially walking out to the field where the "mushroom" sat. None of the accounts mention Edwards setting down one of the stones before his first throw.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Another item ... No account states Edwards saw any visible evidence of the barrier / force field / "pressure." Edwards' only basis for perceiving such a barrier consisted of his descriptions of the two rocks striking something and his own perception of hitting the "pressure" when advancing on the object after throwing the two stones.

As such, one has to wonder why the barrier completely blocked his first stone, but the second stone (apparently thrown higher) skimmed off something before landing beyond the object. It would seem the invisible barrier had a maximum height on the order of the object's own height.

 

[BS3]

There are a couple of things possibly in operation here.

It seems likely that the process of questioning by ufologists, or journalists, and particularly the pressure to give exact descriptions, can help to 'fix' details in a witness' mind where they were previously indistinct and confused. This may inadvertently lead a witness into elaboration, or lead the questioner to shape the experience. For example there are a couple of things about this case that remind me of Valensole (1965) - the object's central 'stalk' sticking in the ground, for example. I don't suppose Edwards had heard of Valensole, and his description just seems too odd to be completely fabricated, but Phillips might certainly have heard of it.

The other point is that as part of this process of 'fixing' detail it seems likely that people might invent further features in order to please or help to convince the questioner, or even to reinforce their own belief in the reality of what they saw. For all we know Edwards could have spotted the rocks in the pasture and added the detail about throwing them to help convince Phillips that his experience was real.