April 1, 2001
Location: Stillwater, Minnesota, United States
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."
Object viewed from below at its lowest altitude
Craig R. Lang, Mr. Dean DeHarpporte, Minnesota MUFON and
NUFORC (Nat'l UFO Report. Center)
to original source]
Note: This report is submitted by Craig R. Lang, State
Director for Minnesota for the Mutual UFO Network (firstname.lastname@example.org>.
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))
April, 2001, Close Sighting of Large Triangular Object
and Other Objects 1 of 2
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
p.m., 25 minutes after sunset)
Weather conditions: Clear, light wind, temperature near
Sighting Duration: Witness 1, ~1 minute, Witness 2, ~1
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
Local Evaluation: Witness 1 UFO, CE1 Unexplained. Witness
2 possible CE1, probably airplane lights.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
description. Witness 2 observed two white lights, separated
by the width of her thumb at arm's 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.
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 7,200 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.
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.
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 7,200 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.