Saturday, June 20, 2015

Kerman, California UFO Case - An Update

As I had hoped, the Manuel Amparano sighting and burn incident has caused some good discussion and a few irrelevant points (let’s look at Stephenville, Hasting’s work and the Phoenix Lights… though I’m surprised that no one mentioned the Washington Nationals, the Lubbock Lights photographs and the Levelland Sightings in their wishes to see information on other cases). The discussion did take a nasty turn when it appears that some couldn’t read what I had posted and when I attributed an International UFO Reporter article to Dr. Michael Swords that he did not write. That article follows:

I also used, as a source, the APRO Bulletin article that was probably written by Coral Lorenzen which follows:

There is also a new assessment of the case written by Jason Marzek for the Fringe Republic which can be found here: 

And there is another assessment with some documentation embedded in it that can be found here:

For those who wish another source, the website has a short article that references the IUR article from September 1978 on pages 10 – 11, which appears above, and articles from the Fresno Bee for May 19, 1978 and February 23, 1979.

Dr. Swords did write an article for the IUR, Volume 34, Number 4 (September 2011) which does mention the Kerman, California case, but only in a table on Foundational “burn-like” skin cases. It gives the date and nothing more. The coincidence here is that both articles were published in September in the IUR, though decades apart. There is no byline on the first IUR article. The only names associated with the IUR then were J. Allen Hynek and Allan Hendry. It would seem that Hendry was the author, though, as I say, there is no byline.

This is, however, a secondary issue. The question seems to be, where did the report of second degree burns come from? Clearly the man was burned as the documentation and the witness testimony establishes. Since there is documentation for third degree burns from both the sheriff and the medical facility, I’m not sure why we have bogged down in the question of the second degree burns.

At any rate, if this was one of the articles on chasing footnotes, I would have mentioned that the article attributed to Michael Swords was not written by him but it does appear in the IUR. I will note that I try to attribute the information to the proper source and give credit where credit is due. Here, I believed that Swords, because of the reference I had found, was responsible for the earlier article. So, we clear that up, and I apologize to Swords for dragging his name into this. We can move on to the other questions.

Oh, just for fun, I will note that most of us know that attempting to determine distance, size and speed of an unknown object seen in the night sky with no points of reference is nearly impossible… if the witness gets it right, I would suggest that it more luck than observational ability and that angular size, angle above the ground and direction would be more important than guesses about precise figures for size, distance and speed.


Lance said...

Hi Kevin,

In which medical document is there mention of third degree burns? I only see that in the workman's comp document written by the sheriff.

If Michael Swords didn't write the material attributed to him in the earlier article then I owe him an apology.



KRandle said...

Lance -

The medical document was obtained by the Fringe Republic and was posted to their article about the case, link provided...

I'm tempted to make a snarky comment here, but will only say, that I thought it was clear that the IUR article I referenced and posted here, was not written by Dr. Swords. I suspect it was actually written by Allan Hendry, but there is no byline attached so that is a guess.

Lance said...


Are you saying that you see a medical document written by medical personnel that mentions third degree burns at the Fringe Republic site?

I don't see that.

There is an emergency room record that says:

Mild First degree burn

and a

Doctor's First Report that clearly just says 1st degree burns.

It is the sheriff's workman's comp document filled out by the sheriff himself that seems to be the first to bring up third degree burns--perhaps that is why the sheriff didn't want to release info at the time since the document seems to be false. Is that what you are referring to?

Where did you see mention of second degree burns you cited in the last article? That reference isn't in the new documents you posted (unless I overlooked it).


Unknown said...


I'm curious to know why you place so much importance on the degree of the burns. I'm not being snarky at all, just curious. One explanation for the difference between the medical report and the worker's comp claim could be that worker's comp didn't cover first degree burns and did cover third degree burns. Pure speculation on my part but it might explain why the Chief filed the claim the way he did. Maybe it was an attempt to help out his officer. When you consider the number of people who get sunburned every year in CA. it could make sense. Worker's comp would probably go broke if they covered every case of sunburn.

To me, the weather conditions between Kerman and Vandenberg would be more important. For instance a light fog or haze might actually support the rocket launch explanation. The light from the rocket might appear larger diffused by the fog or haze than it would on a clear night. A closer match to the witness accounts, it still doesn't explain the burns. On a night with heavy fog, haze or cloud cover the launch may not have been seen at all.

KRandle said...

Lance –
I do not understand your obsession with this second degree burn discussion. I have provided documentation showing both first degree and third degree burns (and it doesn’t matter if it was the sheriff or a doctor who made the claim, the documentation exists for it.)

In some of the information it was noted that Amparano said that he “was as red as a lobster” and that “It was like a sunburn when you fall asleep at the pool. There were white blisters on the parts of my body facing that light.”

Here are the symptoms of second degree burns as published at

• Partial thickness
• Blisters can be present
• Involve the entire epidermis and upper layers of the dermis
• Wound will be pink, red in color, painful and wet appearing
• Wound will blanch when pressure is applied
• Should heal in several weeks (10-21 days) without grafting, scarring is usually minimal
• Full thickness
• Can be red or white in appearance, but will appear dry.
• Involves the destruction of the entire epidermis and most of the dermis
• Sensation can be present, but diminished
• Blanching is sluggish or absent
• Full thickness will most likely need excision & skin grafting to heal

So, the descriptions match that of second degree burns. It just seems to me that if you have reported that there were first degree burns and then third degree burns, and the symptoms of second degree burns are described by the witness, then the question has been asked and answered. It also seems that this discussion of trivia has missed the main points here including that the witness manifested a physiological reaction to the exposure of some sort of radiation (and by radiation, I mean something as simple as sunlight though the records indicate speculation by the doctors noted that exposure to microwave radiation can result in burns to the skin through the clothing and leave no evidence on the clothes). Here is a sighting that provided an opportunity for some good scientific research but the opportunity was lost. It might turn out that the Vandenberg launch was the root cause but that does not explain the burns suffered and documented by various sources at the time, which should be the real question and not the obsession with second degree burns.

So, the point here is that there is evidence for second degree burns and this part of the discussion should be concluded.

Lance said...

I'm astonished by the responses above.

This is way beneath you, Kevin.

I suppose it does seem odd among UFO believers when someone tries to fact check one of their stories.

I'm not obsessed with the second degree burn claim, I just asked where it came from. It's a medical diagnosis, typically made by a doctor. I still don't know the answer. Amazingly It appears Kevin, that you diagnosed the gentleman, yourself using the internet? And now that diagnosis is evidence of some sort? Fascinating.

To say that a medical diagnosis doesn't matter if it comes from a sheriff or a UFO blogger or a doctor.... well, that is just amazing but sadly indicative of the kind of silly thinking that pervades the UFO world.

This kind of stuff is why anyone connected to science just laughs at UFO dogma. Go tell your doctor next time that you want a second opinion from the sheriff or from a UFO writer.

The only actual medical evidence we have is that the man had mild first degree burn...which is nothing.

All of the hearsay witness blah blah blah the microwaves etc. is NOT backed up by medical evidence or any other kind of documentation. AND some of it is DIRECTLY contradicted by the actual medical report. No one saw and documented the blisters for instance.

This is too silly for words.

But it probably is one of the great UFO cases, in that it is so ridiculously worthless.


ufodebunker said...


The fact that this guy is now regularly making the UFO conference circuit (circus?) speaks volumes wouldn't you say? LOL

Best Regards!

KRandle said...

Lance –

Is this really the attitude you wish to take? Do you really wish to drag this down to that level?

You wrote about the second and third degree burns, “There is a mention of third degree burns on the workman's comp form presumedly filled out by the sheriff not by a doctor.

“Somebody felt the need to UFO this up!”
The point has always been that no one “UFO[ed] this up.” The documentation said there were first degree burns and third degree burns. While it is conceivable that the sheriff “uped” the burn level for the workman’s compensation claim, that is speculation that is unproven… as you noted, “…presumedly…” Not exactly evidence.

You wished to know where the idea of second degree burns originated and I provided testimony from the witness, describing burns that were consistent with second degree. I did not argue that this was an established fact, only that there was testimony to it. You decided to take the low road on this, forgetting your allegation that “Somebody felt the need to UFO this up!” That is not true. The level of burn was in the various documentation.

I will note that I added the speculation by a doctor about the microwave radiation only because there would be no need to invoke the extraterrestrial as a cause of the burns. They were consistent with what you might expect of microwave radiation, not that they had been caused by microwaves… but this does provide a conventional explanation.

But all this started because of your allegation that “Somebody felt the need to UFO this up!” That isn’t the case, which, of course, doesn’t take us to the extraterrestrial, only that the evidence originated in the various reports, claims and documentation made by those who participated in the case in 1978… the doctors, the police officers, the sheriff and the witness. No one felt the need to UFO this up! That was your speculation and the original point.

ufodebunker -

Clearly you are not referring to me. I will be in Minnesota in a couple of weeks to participate in their programming with only expenses. That is currently all that I have scheduled... so, to whom are you referring?

Lance said...


Yes, dully accepting that Amparano had anything beyond first degree burns IS UFOing the case up.

And that is what IUR article you posted is doing.

That you can't see that is unfortunate.

But that is how UFO writing and "research" works: no understanding of what constitutes evidence and ALWAYS describing things to maximize the ooga booga.


albert said...

[@Kevin, the URL in the Fringe Republic link is misspelled]


Neither the IUR nor the APRO articles quote Ampararo. Neither are the authors credited. Why should they be considered sources? It's BS. Except for the Fresno Bee, who's quoting Ampararo? Maybe IUR and APRO are quoting the Bee.

ufodebunker said...

Certainly not you! I was referring to Amparano. I have been following you for years and have all the respect in the world for you. Not to mention my gratitude for your military service! I just wish this field had fewer frauds and nutjobs! The moniker I use does not mean I think UFOs are not worthy of study. Its that the field is loaded with fringe idiots would be better served getting proper psychiatric treatment.

Best Regards!

Don Maor said...


I am frankly worried about you. I have been reading your posts during last weeks and am wondering what's wrong with you or your life, family is right? Are you are suffering or under great stress or what? Frankly, yes, ufological cases and ufology is a tough discipline for various reasons, some of them are the scarcity of data, bad research, the deformation of information, the perception errors, the mythological components, etc., but you seem to be excessively negative and frustrated these days, which is strange considering that you have got something like a triumph regarding the identification, by your group, of the slides mummy.

What is the problem? What do you want? Why don't you leave this topic? Can't you be a little nicer with your criticisms? Why are you so nasty? Why so negative?

But don't be frustrated, ufology, with all the known difficulties it has, is slowly browsing to a better future, a future of discoveries and achievements, may not be today and not tomorrow, but maybe slowly, in years or decades in the future. Relax.

Unknown said...

@ ufodebunker

You seem to say that UFOs are worthy of study. Does this "study" include accusing Mr. Amparano of using a sunlamp not once but twice to create a hoax? Then accusing his Chief of being a co-hoaxer? And as your "study" continues you impugn Mr. Amparano's character further because he speaks of his experience. Sounds a lot like a debunker who doesn't allow facts to get in the way of a debunking. Or do you have some facts to present in this "study" you speak of?

ufodebunker said...


I never said Amparano was lying. If you read my posts carefully you will find that I left room for the remote possibility that he might actually be telling the truth. To impugn someones character requires a direct accusation. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Best Regards!

Unknown said...

ufodebunker said...
Sounds like Amparano saw the UFO and correctly assumed that others saw it. And in effort to collect workman's compensation decided to pull out his sun lamp twice. Once right after the sighting and later during the day before he showed up in the emergency room. What the UFO was no one knows but I doubt he got zapped by a blue beam....interesting story tho!

Best Regards

Where did I put words in your mouth? In this post from the previous thread you clearly accuse him of using a sunlamp. To your credit you did say he saw the UFO but I never mentioned that.Would you like me to quote the other post in which you claimed his Chief was a co-hoaxer? Enough said, this is not the kind of study we need.

ufodebunker said...


What do you think the phrase "sounds like" means?

Best Regards!

Nitram said...

Hello Kevin

Firstly I would like to thank you for the interesting articles and great research that you do on your blog. It is always a pleasure to read.

Regarding the earlier post you noted in reference to Lance...

"While you often make good and interesting points, I wonder if you could make them without the snarky comments."

I think this does cut both ways and maybe I am guilty of being quite snarky about him (and one or two others on the blog) - but what Lance has been posting (in most cases) over the last few weeks seems to make a lot of sense to me, in all fairness to him...

Lance stated in the earlier post - "On the night of a missile launch, at the time of the launch, in the direction of the launch... maybe it was a goddamn missile launch"

Hmm, my guess would be that Lance is probably correct on this one (and maybe his tone isn't that unreasonable either).

So Kevin, what would your "best guess be" as to what was seen in the sky by the office concerned?

For what it's worth I'll go "missile" (although I can't really explain the burns regardless of which "degree" they are...)


CommanderCronus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CommanderCronus said...

A hoax is absolutely a reasonable explanation. Follow this link to this movie clip, and remember that this was playing in theaters at the time of the sighting.

Anthony Mugan said...

I am saddened by these last couple of articles and the discussion. Attempts to fit the case to any of a missile launch ( which doesn't account for the sunburn), a genuine UFO, for which there is insufficient evidence or a scam ( or joke on the supervisor which went too far) all have insufficient evidence to conclusively determine.

It's been an interesting few months and those of us involved with this field need to reflect carefully on standards of evidence.

Personally...I don't see the point of wasting time on poor quality cases like this. Think I'll take a break from comments and just focus on my own work.

Best wishes all

Brian B said...

Perhaps he saw an object "that was painted on a photo of a glass shelf"?

But seriously, there doesn't seem to be enough information to even consider this case any further. Such is the situation with many UFO sightings, not enough information or details to clearly establish if anything was seen or not. It further amazes me that any insurance company would even back a claim that a UFO caused injury. Or even that police officers would think that a disability claim would be honored with such "evidence".

Here's to better cases in the future…

Unknown said...

The rocket launch explanation just doesn't cut it. This is something like a guy who tells his wife he's home late because of a traffic jam but can't explain the lipstick on his collar.

@ Kevin, since Mr. Amparano is still alive what questions would you ask him?

ufodebunker said...


I think the police chief intentionally suppressed the UFO story when he applied for workmen's comp to ensure that it would be approved. Nevertheless I find this tale rather duvious. Reminds me of Walton's blue beam zapping in Sitgreaves National Park a few years earlier. A copycat report?!

Best Regards!

Paul Young said...

I've not seen such a daft explanation for this UFO report,since the Orford Ness lighthouse explanation for the Rendlesham incident. Quite how a policeman, presumably trained in taking attention to detail, could confuse a rocket launch 140 odd miles away, with what he reported...?

... “The object was hovering, was a ‘silver aluminum, round’ craft which the witness approached fairly close.”

..."He watched it out of the side window of the car for about four minutes until a bright blue beam shot out of the craft that Amparano described like that of a flash from a camera. The UFO then climbed out silently toward the southeast, and finally disappeared straight up in seconds"...

Either the man is a hoaxer... OR he accurately reported what he saw and the thing somehow left him with some kind of a burn...and that can not have been the rocket!

There's no real reason why he didn't see both the distant rocket AND the {closer} UFO. He seemingly described two different things... a ball of fire that he thought could have been a palm tree on fire and secondly silver aluminium round/oval object... (Let's face it, historically UFO's seem to be out and about when our rockets/missiles/latest technology aircraft are active.... but only one of the things could feasibly have burnt him (if he was burnt)...and that's the,far closer, UFO.

David Rudiak said...

Let's see if I have this straight.

Amparano (and at least two other eyewitnesses) report a UFO in a different part of the sky and completely different looking than a missile launch at 150 miles (which I can tell you from multiple personal experiences with such Vandenberg launches is nothing but a diffuse flickering light at large distances), but it has to be a missile launch.

Then to cover for his embarrassing mistake (or to cleverly take advantage of it), Amparano whips out his sunlamp that he routinely keeps in his squad car just for such occasions and gives himself a "sunburn" such that he appears lobster red when he returns to the police station (but appeared totally normal before going out on patrol). He burns himself to the point of painful blistering because that's what people do to collect workman's compensation and get a few paid days off the job. His police chief goes along with the scam.

He also burns himself with his "sunlamp" in a very peculiar way, because it would mean removing his shirt, burning just the upper part of his body (face, neck, arms, chest) that just happens to correspond with full exposure as he described it while viewing the UFO, while parts of his body that would be protected by the car door are not burned (nor the back of his body). He does it perfectly such that the doctors are fooled into thinking his peculiar pattern of burns was produced by microwave radiation and not other forms of radiation (like a UV sunlamp).

We do not need to consider the other witnesses (in fact, do not dare mention them) reporting a fireball or lights approaching from the NW (not S) and headed to town, or the reported "fire" NW (not S) of town that brought a response from two fire departments north of town, nor consider a possibly related astronomer report in nearby Fresno of another fireball descending to ground in a very complex pattern that again could not possibly have anything to do with the missile launch to the far south.

This is how Debunker"Science" usually works--carefully cherry-pick the evidence, leave out absolutely EVERYTHING that doesn't agree with the supposed mundane explanation (which might include throwing out 90+%), or grossly distort it, and, voila, "solution", no matter how poorly it actually matches the real evidence. Thus, distant rocket launch almost due south now explains "everything".

(BTW, if his burns produced blisters, that is automatically 2nd degree burns, i.e. more serious skin damage and destruction. Blistering might not appear immediately either, in which case initially would be classified as 1st degree burning. No evidence of actual full skin destruction or charring, which would have been 3rd degree burns.)

cda said...

Paul Young need not think a policeman is any better than the average viewer in observing an unfamiliar object. See Allan Hendry's UFO HANDBOOK for details (p. 101-2).
Police, as good observers, fared very badly in his statistics.

Likewise there is a famous case in the UK (Devon, Oct 1967) where two policemen were fooled by Venus close to the horizon and chased it in their patrol car for 20 minutes! As it happens, in the Condon report the same stellar object was misidentified by US police patrols on the same day, plus or minus one day. See Condon, case 37, p.368. Just because police officers were the witnesses is no guarantee that the object seen was an unknown. How many policemen have observed a rocket launch from a distance of 100+ miles and would recognise it for what it was?

Lance said...

Many of the supposed facts that David brings up are second hand and hearsay? All of them come from Amparano and NONE of them are documented in any other way.

The microwave thing? Not mentioned in medical documents.
The blisters? Same thing.
It is already decisively established that there were no third degree burns.

Unfortunately the sighting isn't very well documented but what we have is rather decisive, putting the light in the Southern or Southernwestern sky. That is EXACTLY towards Vandenberg. And has been mentioned at EXACTLY the right time.

But sightings that are not very well documented are where one can really go to town with the rudiaking of the information. David tries to put the sighting in the Western sky, somehow. Really, knowing how UFO belief works, it could be anywhere in the sky--the facts don't matter.


Nitram said...

David, I see that your in a jovial mood!

"Let's see if I have this straight... but it has to be a missile launch."

No, it doesn't - but what is your "best guess" for what was seen by the officer concerned?


John's Space said...

Burns of this type are not unheard of in the case of UFO close encounters. There are even a few reports of serious radiation exposure. On the other hand most UFO encounters don't lead to physical injuries.

The giant UFOs in the Hudson Valley cases in the 1980s didn't cause any injuries or radiation effects. Some of these we very close to the witnesses.

So is this due to the origin of the UFO with different civilizations having different systems or perhaps it just a case of the state of repair of a given craft?

Unknown said...

I've been in contact with Jason Marzek owner of the Fringe Republic website. I asked him if he had ever seen a rocket launch or had Mr. Amparano ever been asked about rocket launches. He gave me permission to post his reply.

Jason Marzec wrote:

"as for the rocket launches I have lived here in kerman for 6 years and I have not witnessed any launches. we do spend a lot of time outside at night me and my son look for uradion flares and satellites.
when I interviewed Manuel he told me about individuals who are trying to debunk his encounter as a rocket launch. as for me personally I do not believe it was a rocket launched from Southern California. Manuel believe with everything that it is a UFO that is man made. after flashing and burning him it took off towards Nevada. when me and Manuel looked at it on a map it was lined up directly with what is commonly known as area 51. I do not know if this is coincidental or not.
but I do know one thing Manuel is not looking for publicity or money. he came to me on his own free will and offer to talk to me about the event.. never once did he ask for anything other than that he wants to know what that object was that burned him back in 1978."

He also said that he welcomes comments on his website from either side of the fence, he is only looking for the truth. I'll add that he is a family guy so please try to keep comments clean.

Brian B said...


Please note the comment above that the witness believes it to be a "man made UFO".

Funny that some here easily dismiss my previous comment (other posting on this subject) that it could have been a military vehicle - claiming it could only be ET - when the witness himself says he thinks it man made.

Are you going to tell the witness you know better than he does what he saw?


Unknown said...


To answer your question, no I would not tell the witness that I know what he saw. The possibility of some black project craft does exist IMO. The sighting I had of a BT could also be a secret black project. I don't know because it's a secret. It could also be alien, dimensional, time travel, or something else I can't even imagine.

He apparently saw the direction of travel well enough to determine it's line of departure. Giving less credibility to the rocket launch theory.

DrZachSmith said...

I find it inspiring that hot on the heels of his long-term spirited defence of the Roswell Slides, the Lenscrafter of Roswell is back on the job of boring us all!

Well done, sir!

KRandle said...

DrZachSmith -

I don't understand your comment, other to believe that you are uninterested in anything other than discussions about the Roswell Slides. I thought most of us understood that the image was not alien and there was enough blame for all the participants without beating this into the ground.

David Rudiak said...

"DrZachSmith" driveled:
I find it inspiring that hot on the heels of his long-term spirited defence of the Roswell Slides, the Lenscrafter of Roswell is back on the job of boring us all!

Well done, sir!

I find it dispiriting that yet another anonymous troll with nothing to add but the usual witless troll snarkiness has poked his nose into the conversation.

On the other hand, "DrZachSmith" is a well-chosen pseudonym, an homage to the spineless villain of "Lost in Space".

Well done, sir!

marine63 said...

Gentlemen, If a medical employee working at Fresno Community Hospital had not leaked out my medical condition or how I received my sunburn condition to the local media, this debate would not be taking place. I did not wish to cause damage to my police career, and I did receive a setback as Kerman Chief Of Police James Van Cleaf prior to leaving for a position with Dixon Police Department passed me up for a sergeant position because of the UFO sighting which leaked out from the hospital. Chief Van Cleaf was not my friend and he did not want a police officer going in front of the media and confirming he observed a UFO while on duty. Officer A.J. Byington a witness was asked by the chief what he had witnessed that night and was not ordered to write a report as were the other officer;s involved with the sighting. The other officers and police chaplain, my ride along that night confirmed my condition when I reported to work, and what occurred during the night shift. Enough said, "gentlemen".

marine63 said...

May 13,1978, UFO chronological order of sighting's by witnesses to event, occurring in City of Kerman. First sighting began at 02:30 A.M., Trinity and Shaw Avenues, by a farmer who notified north central fire department Kerman station of a grass fire in a field. A fire truck from Kerman and one from the town of Biola responded to the given location reported. The firemen found no evidence of a fire in the field. About 03:00 A.M. a farmer Thomas Addis observed a glowing red object flying across his fields in a southeast direction at Trinity and Belmont avenues, at treetop level. This sighting was reported to Kerman police detective Tom Gilpin.At 03:30 A.m. Lisa Harrison, a housewife observed the object approaching the city of Kerman from the northwest at treetop level from her apartment at Del Norte and Kearney Blvd. 03:32 A.M., Kerman police officer Amparano observed what he belived to be a tree fire at Del norte and California avenues, while stopped at Del Norte and Whitesbridge avenues. Officer Amparano drove to the location to confrim a tree on fire before calling out the fire department. Upon arrival Amparano obsevered a reddish object the color of a setting sun behind a tree, below treetop level and just above the field it was hovering over. When the patrol car headlights flashed on the object, it began to slowly rise and stopped approximately a hundred feet up. Ken Westbook Jr. was working in a field near the town of Tranquillity southwest of Kerman,when he observed the object at or above treetop level and he reported the sighting to Kerman Chief of Police James Van Cleaf. Amparano reported that when he attempted to light the object with his roof mounted spotlight, the object emitted a bluish white light toward the patrol vehicle and left at a very fast speed easterly, parallel to California avenue. Westbrook told Van Cleaf that before the object left it flickered or flashed and disappeared. Retired Special US Marshal Phil Maher was stopped at Whitesbridge and Grantland avenues, when he observed a reddish ball in the sky moving east at a very fast speed. Maher gave his report to Amparano and UFO investigator from Probe, Richard Zimmerman who later interviewed most of the witnesses. Meteorologist Carl Smith stationed at the Fresno air terminal reported that a day or two before Amparano's sighting he had observed red orbs flying west of Fresno like crazy airline pilots. A crop duster pilot flying out of an airfield in Tranquillity also reported a red orb that appeared to be a farmhouse on fire until it started to slowly rise and fly away at a speed faster that a jet plane. This sighting was in July during the night after 03:00 A.M. In January of 1979, the Madera Sheriff's Department reported similar red orbs as did Carl Smith flying northwest of Kerman in a crazy manner and there was an explosion like two orbs colliding together. The listed events were reported to the media and military.

marine63 said...

On May 13, 1978, I Kerman Senior Police Officer, Manuel J. Amparano, had a ride along police chaplain trainee Pastor Tom Johnson, who rode with myself until 02:30 A.M., Kerman Police Officers, Arvin J. Byington and Robert Mueller, were with me until 03:20 A.M., After the sighting, I drove to the Savemart store parking lot on Whitesbridge and Madera Avenues, to make sense of what I had just witnessed. I was shortly met by Phil Maher a retired Special Deputy US Marshal, who reported observing a bright reddish orb flying east parallel to his location at Whitesbridge and Grantland Avenues, where he had stopped his vehicle.I wonder, where did I have time to use a sunlamp. After speaking with Phil, I went to the police station and began to call the Fresno Airport Control Tower, Air National Guard and Fresno Meteorologist Station, located at the airport at the time. It was during this time, when Officers Byington and Mueller came back to the station, to check the work schedule, when they witnessed I was sunburned. They asked me what the hell happened to you while we were gone. It was Officers Byington and Mueller, who said that years later there was an area in the field where the UFO had hovered, where nothing would grow, it was just a circular round spot in the field. I learned about this event years later as I had left Kerman for a position with the Fresno County Sheriff's department. I was also told by Deputy Paul Baker, that a deputy working out of the Town of San Juaquin southwest of Kerman had also viewed the UFO and wrote a report. I ask, did anybody bother to interview these witnesses, before debunking without having the facts. Chief Van Cleaf filled out the workman comp request form from information obtained from Officers Byington and Mueller. Chief Van Cleaf was not the type of police officer, who would fake a report, far from it. It was also reported in the Fresno Bee, that Chief Van Cleaf, reported that he was in contact with an Air force Major, working out of the office of the secretary of the air force at the pentagon. If you travel to the place of occurrence, and view the terrain, interview witnesses as to their location during the sighting and what they observed first hand, then you can give your opinion by obtaining evidence first hand. I did not report to the hospital until fifteen and ahalf hours after the sighting. Officers Byington, Mueller and officer Ed Singh, who relived me and witnessed my burnt condition, pleaded with me to go to the hospital for medical treatment. I delayed as long as I could stand the pain, as I did not want what happened to me to get out to the public. Officer Byington, had called my wife to check on my condition, as he told her while in the station, he and Mueller observed my body twitching. My wife Barbara told Byington , that she had observed the same thing while checking in on me while I was a sleep. Officer Byington told her get him to the hospital. It was my wife who first observed blisters on my ears, and this was reported to the doctors at community hospital. I was told by the doctors that this was new to them and they did not know how to treat my condition. I was given codine pills to help with the pain that they observed, I was experiencing while in the examination room. I was under doctors care for about a month after the sighting.

marine63 said...

On the night of the Kerman sighting, there were police officers from fourteen different departments on night duty. There was also private security officers patrolling through out the county. Highway 99 was busy with commercial trucks passing through the county and there was citizens working outdoor night shifts through out the county. There was not one report of a rocket sighting from anyone that night, or on later days. The local media did not mention any rocket launches took or sightings after the alleged launch took place. The Fresno County Library has copies of newspapers from May 13th through the following weeks.

Unknown said...

Hi my name is Vance Harris I to witness that UFO in 1978 I was outside with my parents and brothers catching bullfrogs for my empty below ground pool and a large I would say fiery sphere shaped egg-shaped craft passed over hiway99veryslowly and for what seemed to be an hour or so just hover over the highway and about 700 ft from us about maybe four hundred feet above us onthere for an hour or sothentook off at trmedous speeds at a degree of say33and was gone