Interview With Edwin Fuhr 37 Years Later - The Lagenburg UFO Case.

™The color of the machine was like a brushed stainless steel. It was rough and you could see while it was revolving that it was sort of grooved all around; you could see kind of grooves, they were darker grey....a dark grey...like it had been hot at one time, like steel that gets hot and cools off."

Farmer Edwin Fuhr

This case caused quite a stir at the time back in September, 1974 but for folks outside UFO research who haven't heard of it then it involves a close range daylight sighting of five spinning, domed shaped objects by farmer Edwin Fuhr in Langenburg, Canada.





Described as 'symmetrical bun shaped' and 'the colour of highly polished steel' it's said the objects also emitted a grey vapour, exhibited highly unusual flight characteristics and left physical trace evidence behind in the form of circular swirls of grass (with grass in the centre still erect) where the objects hovered on his property before 'shooting straight up'.


Documentaries:






In Fearyourmind's great thread here it's also claimed that the police attempted to silence Edwin Fuhr but the corporal in charge of the area found the witness to be 'reliable' and the RCMP (and CUFOS) investigation concluded no hoax.

"Something was there and I doubt it was a hoax. There's no indication anything had been wheeled in or out and Mr. Fuhr seemed genuinely scared."

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Constable Ron Morier

Department Of National Defense document /  RCMP Report:

ufo-joe.tripod.com...

So 37 years on, here's an extensive interview with the chap -he's never changed his story and goes into quite remarkable detail about what happened that day, the unknown objects that visited his farm and the ensuing media frenzy.

In 1974 a farmer in the Canadian prairies was swathing his family field when he came across what he initially believed to be 5 domed hunting blinds parked in the tall grass next to a pond.

As he approached the objects in the tall grass on foot to confront whomever was responsible, he suddenly realized the objects were spinning at a very high rate of speed, and hovering a foot off the ground.

After a number of minutes at close proximity, the terrified farmer retreated to his now unresponsive swather, and spent the next extended period of time trapped to his seat in terror, watching the objects spin silently next to the pond.

Eventually the objects lifted off in a stepped formation, momentarily hanging in the air above him. After a purge of vapour, the objects raced out of sight at an incredible speed.

Local RCMP investigated the scene and filed a report which concluded the site was no hoax.

Within a week the timid farmer and his family suffered a media blitz and became an unwilling global celebrity. Thousands flocked to the family farm to see the site by any means possible. Scientists, engineers, energy companies, industrialists, local community members, religious members and all manner of quacks were part of the human bouquet that participated in the siege on the family.

Eventually, the extended family helped form a barrier of respectful privacy between Edwin and the curious mobs.

The story cooled, but the truth of the events remained uncontested

37 years later, the farmer at the center of it all grants an interview and goes into great detail about what he saw, and the insanity that followed once the media became involved. His story about what happened that day has never changed.

Using models, reenactments, family photographs, historical documents, interviews with many involved, and a visit to the actual landing site (still reportedly radioactive), there has never been a more robust access to material on of the 1974 Edwin Fuhr UFO encounter.

The project title is derived from Edwins description of the texture visually present on the upper portion of the objects.

Witness sketch of object:

www.ufoevidence.org...


Documents (courtesy of Easynow):

1- data2.collectionscanada.gc.ca...
2- data2.collectionscanada.gc.ca...
3- data2.collectionscanada.gc.ca...
4- data2.collectionscanada.gc.ca...


Links:

ufologie.patrickgross.org...
www.ufocasebook.com...
www.ufoevidence.org...


E-book:

The Canadian UFO Report - Best Cases Revealed

Disclosure in 2017. I want to believe lol

that sighting is awesome i wonder how they found him after so much time

a reply to: karl 12

Thanks, that's a fascinating case and great interview. If it happened in more recent times i'd wonder if it was some kind of drone tech but that they were silent would seem to rule out even modern drones.

There was one apparently large discrepancy between the history channel account which said the diameter of the bent foliage circles ranged from 8 feet to 11 feet, versus the interview where he said the diameter of the largest objects was 30 feet and his drawing showed the vents on the bottom toward the outer edge so you would expect the diameter of the bent foliage to be at least 20 feet.

Anyway he seems quite credible and apparently he saw some genuine UFOs. So what in the heck were they? We may never know.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

i recall watching this particular incident on a program. It was regarding ufo's that leave behind evidence of one type or another. There was also an incident somewhat like this on the same show froma sighting incident in Kansas I think. There was a round pattern left by another ufo, which was tested, and for some reason nothing would grow back in the spot where the ufo touched down. VERY interesting incidents.

a reply to: karl 12

The way he recounts the incident in the video seems incredibly authentic, just as though he really experienced what he saw. Not to mention that these kinds of encounters are no isolated cases.

All this reminds me a bit of Robert Taylor (and many others) who stuck to their story for decades and never changed it.

Great thread, S&F!

Thanks for the replies and the main man when it comes to physical trace evidence, Ted Phillips also goes into more detail in this paper.

Recently, without fanfare, some of our most distinguished space and aeronautic experts gathered to exchange data on Unidentified Flying Objects - and their confidential reports show that many scientists have seen aerial phenomena that could only be labeled UFOs

Scientific Braintrust Tackles UFO Mystery

Also found it very interesting that the tractor's engine died whilst the UFOs were present (EM effects), the gieger counter in the field ' 'rattled and went into the red' and that the police dogs, the farmer's dog and the cattle refused to go near the area.

The witness in the interview states he was 'scared stiff' and that when the objects took off they did so with such speed that 'if you would have blinked then you would have missed them' - at the time he also remembers wondering 'Who the hell made them?' which I suppose is the main question (as it's still a complete mystery all these years later).

originally posted by: data5091


i recall watching this particular incident on a program. It was regarding ufo's that leave behind evidence of one type or another.

Quite a few similar cases out there mate and Professor Michael Swords brings up another incident in this blog post - he also mentions Fuhr interviews with CUFOS and Timmerman that would certainly be worth a listen.

originally posted by: data5091

There was also an incident somewhat like this on the same show froma sighting incident in Kansas I think..

Gortex made a thread here about that one and below is some good info on British chemist Erol Faruk's paper -'The Indisputable Scientific Evidence for a UFO Landing and Deposition (aka The Delphos Case) that was denied Publication by Scientific Journals'.


Careful what you ask for

Cheers!

News clippings - Fuhr case and other very strange sightings around Langenburg.


Close Encounter At Langenburg

www.awitness.org...


Object Hovers Over Garage

www.awitness.org...


More Than One Sighting

www.awitness.org...


Other sources

www.awitness.org...

a reply to: karl 12

Quite a few similar cases out there mate and Professor Michael Swords brings up another incident in this blog post - he also mentions Fuhr interviews with CUFOS and Timmerman that would certainly be worth a listen.

Hiya matey, he ended up publishing the transcripts in Grass Roots UFOs. IIRC it was Chris Rutkowski who interviewed him in there and it's a lengthy one.

I'll PM you with more details in a bit.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Great stuff mate

In the second vid posted above Chris makes mention of a 'pipe' witnessed emerging from one of the objects and the graphics seem to suggest some kind of water collection going on - can't seem to find any more about that (so maybe a bit of embellishment) but it wouldn't be the first time these type of UFO shenanigans have been reported.


www.abovetopsecret.com...


Cheers!

Fantastic story, and great thread as per usual :-)

This one was new to me.

Thank you :-)

BT

originally posted by: karl 12


Careful what you ask for

Regarding the link.

I have been thinking a lot lately about science and where it will take us. More specifically that supernatural things happen every day but we are still asking for scientific evidence of it. That seems oxymoronic; how can there be scientific evidence of a supernatural event? For all of the big questions it seems as if science is somehow chasing it's own conclusion. I knew there was a scientific filter in society regarding what is acceptable to believe, but I never knew what it looked like till I clicked that link.

The scientific journals are the roots that grow to form our knowledge of the world. If those journals are filtered by what is socially fashionable, then we are painting our own pictures of what the world looks like. A painter paints what he believes about the world, and that seems to be what science has been tasked to do. You may get a good depiction of what a tree looks like through a masterful artist, but the picture always contains what the artist believes about the world.

a reply to: beetee

Certainly an interesting one mate and there are plenty of other freaky reports from the area in this thread - one in particular taken from government archives where a RCMP Officer describes an object having 'portholes'.




a reply to: Sansanoy

Some good points made there Sansanoy and was also put in mind of this statement made by Dr Peter Sturrock.

"Most scientists have never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon. To a scientist, the main source of hard information (other than his own experiments' observations) is provided by the scientific journals. With rare exceptions, scientific journals do not publish reports of UFO observations. The decision not to publish is made by the editor acting on the advice of reviewers. This process is self-reinforcing: the apparent lack of data confirms the view that there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, and this view (prejudice) works against the presentation of relevant data."
Peter A. Sturrock, "An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.1, No.1, 1987

DO YOUR HOMEWORK BEFORE ENTERING UFO FRAY

Cheers.

a reply to: karl 12

Check your PMs. I sent one a couple of days ago.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: karl 12

Check your PMs. I sent one a couple of days ago.

Ah sorry missed that one bud, many thanks and fascinating stuff - that book really does look to be on the way to becoming a cult classic.

Over a period of a dozen years, John Timmerman ran a traveling UFO exhibit for the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) that appeared in malls from Seattle to Dallas to Nova Scotia, and from Guam to Puerto Rico. In the process he spoke to hundreds of people from around the world who came in off the street and described their own UFO sightings and experiences. Timmerman ended up with nearly 1,200 taped interviews, firsthand testimony with the lingering taste of truth. 

Their stories present the UFO phenomenon in all its raw glory, describing lights, disks, cigars, boomerangs, and objects where the structure was… well… indescribable; close encounters of all kinds, landing traces, physiological effects, vehicle interference, entities, radar cases, jet scrambles, crashed disks, morphing objects; and cases of such concentrated weirdness they’ll just make you shake your head, leaving you puzzled and uncomfortable — if not totally floored. A mighty strange universe is providing this entertainment. 

Grassroots UFOs

Have been keeping an eye on Professor Sword's blogspot but it seems he hasn't posted there in a while - hope he's OK as I think it's fair to say the man is a bit of a legend.

Cheers!

originally posted by: jeep3r
a reply to: karl 12

All this reminds me a bit of Robert Taylor (and many others) who stuck to their story for decades and never changed it.

Also similar aspects to this case from Missouri a few years earlier mate - apparently the farmer also found trace evidence.

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. There was an imprint 100 mm x 65 mm. The imprint extended vertically downward to a depth of 100 mm with an extension 25 mm long the depth of the imprint shaft.

link

Cheers

originally posted by: karl 12
Gortex made a thread here about that one and below is some good info on British chemist Erol Faruk's paper -'The Indisputable Scientific Evidence for a UFO Landing and Deposition (aka The Delphos Case) that was denied Publication by Scientific Journals'.

Careful what you ask for

I don't know why anybody would think that case is similar. The witness credibility is much lower in the kansas case, and even Faruk mentions at least two other options for the ring besides "trace evidence" of a UFO, and when he is asked by publishers to consider alternative hypotheses he doesn't comply even though there is a fourth hypothesis easily found online.

The Compelling Scientific Evidence for UFOs - Erol A. Faruk

Finally we get the paper itself. With any experience of journals like Nature, it's easy to see why it was rejected. The 'science' part of the paper is fine, but the long opening background section with links to Wikipedia as sources would put off any mainstream scientific journal.

Has Faruk never read Nature and seen that nothing they publish has links to wikipedia as sources? If he had and used wikipedia sources anyway, one gets the impression he was never really serious about trying to get published, rather one gets the impression that he purposely included links that he knew would prevent publication, so he could collect rejection letters and have something to write about in his book.

As for the analysis, the problem is the leap from the genuinely interesting chemical analysis to the assumption that this vindicates the story of a UFO landing. The other evidence is mostly a family's testimony, plus a single Polaroid photograph said to show the ring where the UFO landed glowing in the dark. (It just looks like a ring of white material in the photo as printed - hardly useful evidence.) Faruk suggests that the existence of material he analyses could be the result of a hoax, a fungal ring or a UFO, and comes down in favour of the third option. But of itself there is no reason to make the leap to UFO other than the witness testimony - there are plenty more possible reasons for the existence of this material. It's strange, for instance, that Faruk doesn't mention the suggestion easily found online that a galvanised iron chicken feeder used to stand where the ring is, and that the ring is where chicken droppings accumulated for years.

Did Faruk even investigate the chicken droppings? If he did he makes no mention of it in his three hypotheses. I notice mention of organic material and that certainly would apply to chicken droppings.

Did Faruk investigate the "wolf girl" sightings by the same 16 year old that witnessed the UFO?

The Great Kansas “Wolf Girl” Hoax

about the time the publicity from all of this began to subside, Johnson reported meeting a strange “wolf girl” with wild blond hair and wearing a torn cloth coat running through the woods on all fours. This happened in November, 1971...

Sheriff Leonard Simpson organized a posse to search the area, but found no sign of the creature. Deputies responded to a report that people had the creature trapped in a shed. They said they arrived to find about 35 people surrounding the shed, but when they looked inside, they found nothing there.

Eventually police wrote off the whole story as a hoax, aided by the wild imaginations of others in the area who apparently wanted to believe the story. No further trace of the “wolf girl” was ever found.

There are so many red flags to the credibility of Johnson like the wolf girl story that was determined to be a hoax. Even if you set all those red flags aside and choose to believe his story about the UFO, there's still no direct link between the UFO and the ring on the ground.

The fact that the family got paid $5000 for their story doesn't prove it's a hoax but it does raise the question of motive.

I haven't run across any such red flags with Edwin Fuhr's credibility, and there don't seem to be alternate explanations for the trace evidence with his sighting (like fairy rings or chicken droppings etc), so I think when you say these cases are similar or related you do a disservice to Edwin Fuhr by putting him in the same boat with this kid talking about "wolf girl", who wasn't in the shed that 35 people surrounded. I don't think the cases are even remotely similar.