13.07.2025

September 24, 1959 - Redmond, Oregon1

The source of this information comes from the NICAP UFO Investigator (August 1962) and the MUFON journal (issue 257 - September 1989). One can also find information in a blue book file on the case, in the UFO Evidence, and Loren Gross’ UFO history for 1959.

Source information

The MUFON journal and UFO Investigator are very limited in their information. However, the UFO evidence is more illuminating:

September 24, 1959: Redmond Airport, Oregon, is situated southeast of the city. (see sketch map). Just before dawn, policeman Robert Dickerson was cruising the city streets when he noticed a bright falling object like a meteor. Instead of “burning out,” the object took on a larger, ball-like appearance, stopped abruptly, and hovered about 200 feet above the ground, its glow lit up juniper trees below it.

The patrolman watched the UFO for several minutes, then drove toward it on Prineville Highway, turning in at the airport. The UFO, meanwhile changed color from bright white to a duller reddish-orange color, and moved rapidly to a new position NE of the airport.

At the FAA office, Flight Service Specialist Laverne Wertz had just completed making weather observations minutes before, and had seen nothing unusual. Now Patrolman Dickerson, Wertz, and others studied the hovering object through binoculars. The UFO was round and flat, with tongues of “flame” periodically extending from the rim.

At 1310Z (5:10 a.m. PST), official logs show, the UFO was reported to Seattle Air Route Control Center. Logs of the Seattle center show that the report was relayed to Hamilton AFB. The Seattle log continues: “UFO also seen on the radar at Klamath Falls GCI [Ground Control Intercept] site. F-102’s scrambled from Portland.”

As the Redmond observers studied the UFO, they noticed a high speed aircraft approaching from the southeast. The log continues: “As aircraft approached, UFO took shape of mushroom, observed long yellow and red flame from lower side as UFO rose rapidly and disappeared above clouds.”

The UFO was seen again briefly, hovering about 25 miles south of the airport. Radar continued to show the UFO south of Redmond for about two hours.2 [See FAA log, Section IX]3 Section IX lists the log and some comments about the case:

When a UFO sighting by Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) personnel on Sept. 24, 1959, at Redmond, Ore., airport [See Section V] was reported in the press, NICAP made a thorough investigation. Information was obtained from the FAA, the Weather Bureau and the IGY World Data Center at Cornell University. A taped interview of the witnesses was obtained by members in the area. The essence of the report was that a round object had descended and hovered, moved quickly to a new position, then shot up into clouds emitting a flame trail as jet interceptors approached. The jets were scrambled because, according to FAA logs, an Air Force radar station was also tracking a UFO at the time.

When queried about the official explanation for this sighting, the Air Force replied: “The Portland Oregon UFO sighting of 24 September 1959 is carried on the records of ATIC as ‘insufficient information.’ The ATIC account of the sighting fails to reveal any evidence of radar tracking or any success of the attempted intercept. It is the ATIC opinion that this object was probably a balloon as evidenced by its relatively long period in the area (more than an hour), and the fact that, unless equipped with reflectors, balloons are not good radar reflectors. The average direction and strength of the wind at the time of the sighting was south at 15 knots [NICAP: The UFO reportedly

moved south, where it showed on radar after the visual sighting had ended’.” (Maj. Lawrence J Tacker, USAF, Public Information Division Office of Information, 1 19-60).

NICAP obtained wind data from the U.S. Weather Bureau showing steady winds from the southeast throughout the morning, from 3-7 knots, until nearly five hours after the sighting. No balloon had been launched locally at the time of the sighting, and even if one had been, it almost certainly would have traveled on a northerly course. Later, the Air Force dropped the balloon explanation.

After NICAP publicity on the case drew Congressional attention, the Air Force issued a much more detailed account (admitting that six jet interceptors had been scrambled, but denying that radar had tracked a UFO). Air Force letters to Members of Congress attributed the radar sighting to an error on the part of their Ground Control Intercept radar station. “It was determined by the four senior controllers on duty during the period of the search that this radar return on the ground station scope was a radar echo from a gap filler antenna located on a mountain at the 8010-foot level. This radar return did not move during the entire period of the search. [NICAP: The FAA logs  state, “Altitude has been measured on height finder at altitudes that vary from 6000 to 54,000 feet.”] . The fact that this radar return did not move is in complete disagreement with ground observers who sighted the UFO visually. They all testified it maneuvered rapidly and at times hovered.” (Col. Gordon B. Knight, Chief, Congressional Inquiry Division, Office of Legislative Liaison, to Senator Warren G. Magnuson, 4-27-60.)

On March 25, 1960, the Pentagon UFO spokesman had written to NICAP that “. . because of the information contained in the FAA logs, your correspondence and the copies of the logs have been forwarded to ATIC for possible additional consideration.......Based upon all the present data on this sighting, the finding of ‘insufficient data’ is definitely valid.” As of Col. Knight’s April 27, 1960, letter to Senator Magnuson, the case still was classified as ‘’insufficient data.”

An Air Force information sheet circulated in 1963 attributes the UFO to ‘’the refraction of light from the planet Venus.” (The sheet also accuses NICAP of “exploitation” of the FAA logs which contradicted the Air Force story). NICAP astronomy advisors had already checked this possibility, and knew Venus was prominent in the eastern sky that morning. The witnesses were queried on this specific point and stated they did not see Venus during the UFO sighting, but did see it and identify it afterwards.

NICAP concedes that, if the radar target was perfectly stationary throughout, it was not the UFO observed visually. When trying to establish the balloon explanation, the Air Force emphasized the long period of observation (The FAA log indicates the visual sighting lasted about 10 minutes.) When dissociating the radar sighting from the visual sighting, the Air Force emphasized the high maneuverability of the UFO. Finally, the UFO which “maneuvered rapidly and at times hovered” has been explained as the planet Venus.3

The Blue Book file is a bit different than the NICAP version. The file contains many reports and there are conflicts as far as times and details. Blue Book also failed to get the witnesses to complete the eyewitness report forms. As a result, we are left grasping at details regarding direction the object was seen5:

• The object was first sighted by policeman Robert Dickerson at 1200Z (0400 PST).

• Object was described as descending and in a location north of the airport.

• The object had four protruding lights of green, yellow, white, and red. They would go out and come back on.

• When he reached the airport, the object turned to orange and was visible to the northeast.

• He continued to observe the object with Mr. Wertz, an airport/FAA employee. It stayed steady in its position and projected tongues of red, yellow, green light. These tongues extended and retracted at irregular times.

• Dickerson would eventually attempt to see if he could get closer to the object and drove further down the highway, which was in a due east direction.

• At 1259Z/1310Z, the object was approached by an aircraft. The UFO turned mushroom shaped and yellow-red flames were seen at bottom of the object. It rose into a cloud layer estimated at 14,000 feet and disappeared.

• The object was then observed again by FAA operator Laverne Wertz at 1325Z. It was estimated at a distance of 20 miles south of Redmond at an altitude of 35,000 feet.

• Weather was high, thin, broken clouds.

• After Mr. Wertz reported the UFO, the Air Force recognized they had an unknown contact in the region. This resulted in the scrambling of various aircraft, including a helicopter, between 1300 and 2230Z. No UFOs were ever identified but multiple passes were made in the vicinity of a radar contact at 12,000 to 40,000 feet near La Pine, Oregon. This location was about 40 miles south of Redmond Airport. This disagrees with the 25 miles south of Redmond in the FAA document.

Another source of information is Loren Gross’ history on the case. He talked to Dr. McDonald, who interviewed the witnesses and got specifics not obtained by NICAP or Blue Book. This interview happened six to seven years later, in 1966, and McDonald conveyed the content of the interview to Richard Hall.

...Then the light went out, and he saw it climb off eastward at an angle, giving off a dull red glow and looking more like a red streak at this time. Since he was heading east and it went off to the east, he decided to drive out to the airport and see if he could find anyone there who had seen it and see if he could get any information out of them.... FAA employee Laverne Wertz was on duty and Dickerson got him outside and the two watched with binoculars. At that juncture it was just a glowing white light, oval, with longer axis horizontal. It lay off to their east. It made small oscillations, but did not change its general location. There seemed, he said, to be something like ‘heat radiation waves’ emanating from it. He puts its range at perhaps 7-8 miles then, but said this was a guess influenced by subsequent reports that its brightness awakened several persons in the town of Powell Butte, which lies at that 7-8 mile distance. They watched it for about 30 minutes, then he decided to drive towards Powell Butte to get a better view of it.... We continued to observe UFO. Stayed very steady and projected long tongues of red, yellow and green light. These tongues of light varied in length and extended and retracted at irregular times. Observed high speed aircraft approaching from southeast [Portland is northwest from Redmond. Were the jets redirected?]. As aircraft approached UFO took shape of mushroom, observed long yellow and red flame from lower side as UFO rose rapidly

and disappeared above clouds estimated 15,000 feet, scattered layer...As Dickerson drove east towards Powell Butte, he had gone only about 2-3miles [along Highway 126], watching the stationary luminous object through his windshield, when suddenly it shot straight upwards, with almost instantaneous acceleration. He emphasized the way in which it lit up the broken cloud deck as it passed through it, spreading a momentary whitish bright glow over the deck [These clouds could have hidden Venus. This is an important point that came up later]. He, himself, never saw jets, but Wertz informed him later that Wertz was monitoring traffic and heard the communications indicating that the jets were just approaching the area when the object shot up.6

Analysis

The initial observation is somewhat confusing in the Blue Book and NICAP narrative/reports. We are led to believe that the object was either in the direction of the airport or towards the north of the airport. The airport was to the southeast of where Dickerson was initially located. If the object was initially to the north or northeast of Dickerson, he would have drive northward towards SR 370 and not eastward on SR 126. McDonald’s interview with Dickerson indicates the object was to the east, which was why he drove towards the airport. Dickerson also told McDonald he drove eastward to get a better view.

The map provided by NICAP is somewhat misleading.7 The arrow for the direction of Venus is pointing eastward but by placing the arrow south of the airport, it points towards the horizon to the SE. That implies it was in that location and not the direction of the UFO. Had they pointed eastward from where the observers were, it would suddenly make it appear the UFO was in the same general direction.

Venus rose at an azimuth of 81 degrees at 1128Z. It was at greatest brilliancy at magnitude -4.75. By 1200Z it was at an azimuth of 87 degrees and 5 degrees elevation. This is pretty much where Dickerson and NICAP place the UFO on their map. The “falling” of the UFO could have been a perception issue as Dickerson was driving in the direction of the airport. This also could have been the reason the UFO was listed as being towards the northeast at one point. As Dickerson drove down rte 126, the road changed direction towards the southeast. If Dickerson thought he was still driving eastward, the UFO would have been to his left about 45 degrees. That results in him thinking the object had shifted towards the northeast when it was the road that changed direction and not the object.

The UFO now appeared to move around a given location with shooting off “tongues” of varying colors of light. These are common observations of UFO witnesses looking at stars/planets. The Auto kinetic effect tends to make bright lights move about in a dark sky.

Scintillation can make stars, and planets, appear to shoot off beams, twinkle, or vary in color.

By 1259/1310Z (depending on what source is used), the UFO rose into the clouds and disappeared. Twilight was well underway at this point and the sun rose at 1354Z. It is no surprise that Venus’ brilliance would start to fade as the sky brightened. After the object disappeared into the clouds, Dickerson and/or Wertz reportedly saw an object to the south, which they assumed was the original object. In the blue book file, it states it was making good speed. In the NICAP document, we are told it was hovering. We do not know what happened to this object since it is not clear in either source. I assume it eventually disappeared, which means it could have faded away in the morning twilight. That indicates a potential astronomical object. At 1310Z, the bright star Sirius would have still been visible and was at azimuth 156 degrees and 25 degrees elevation.

In the NICAP file, they state that the Venus explanation was presented to Dickerson and Wertz. Both stated they did not see it during the sighting but “later” saw it and identified it. I find it difficult to believe that they did not see such a prominent object in the vicinity of where they saw the UFO. It seems likely that they had no idea that Venus was in the sky at the time and, only after being asked by NICAP, did they suddenly remember seeing Venus. Dr. McDonald wrote about this in his letter to Richard Hall:

The next AM, at the same time, he and Wertz checked the eastern skies. Although they had not noticed Venus the preceding morning, they saw it on the AM of the 25th, in the eastern skies, very bright [a bit of cloud could have cloaked it]. However, he said they were looking down the direction of [Highway] No. 126, which provided a definite reference line, and while Venus lay to the left (north) of Highway 126, they had seen the bright, hovering, oval object to the right (south) of 126. Also, he indicated that the object was not a circular (!) light like Venus; it was oblong, he said. He could not account for the fact that they had not been aware of Venus the preceding morning, and indicated they got some ridicule over this, though none in the press, apparently.8

Again, this bit of information confirms the object was in the east and not the Northeast. It also demonstrates that NICAP wasn’t being completely honest. They stated that the witnesses saw Venus “afterwards”. They did not say it was on the next day. As for the location of Venus in relation to the road on subsequent mornings, deviation to the left or right of the road could have been due to the location where the witnesses were standing being different. A few hundred feet could easily make the difference.

The image to the right shows the line of sight from two different locations about 350 feet apart near the airport traffic center. From the northern location, Venus would appear to the left of the road. From the southern location to the right.

McDonald tries to make it appear that clouds obscured Venus and that is why Venus was not visible. Of course, Venus, being very bright, could have been visible through broken or thin clouds, which is how the weather was described in the Blue Book file (high, thin, and broken). This would have made the planet appear unusual compared to being seen under clear conditions.

Finally, Loren Gross adds a bit of information regarding an Aurora Camera that was operating that night in Redmond. Richard Hall received the following information from Mr. Sprague of the IGY:

As mentioned in Professor Gartlein’s letter of December 22, 1959, we found nothing unusual on this film and the same is true of the inspection made by Wolf and the Portland Oregonia. You should bear in mind, however, that the camera gives a very small image of the sky and it is seldom possible to see star sized objects unless they are very bright. This is especially true of pictures with clouds. Venus and the moon show just before sunrise, but no other stars are visible.9

This bit of information provides us with some important data. If the only thing visible in the images are Venus and the moon, then the UFO was probably Venus. The UFO was described as being bright and was visible for over an hour. If Venus was recorded, then the UFO should have been as well. Additionally, since Venus was recorded on the camera, it should have been visible to Dickerson and Wertz and not covered by clouds as Dr. McDonald suggested.

All of the information so far indicates that Venus is the probable for the source of this sighting and it is also possible that Sirius was visible long enough to the south to give the false impression that the object had shifted to the south once Venus disappeared into the clouds.

The object to the south, which may have been Sirius, is a confusing observation. From McDonald’s interview with Dickerson, it appears that Wertz was the witness to this. The USAF had a radar contact to the south of Redmond at 1300Z according to their log.

This was after Wertz had called Seattle ARTC about the UFO (Seattle then contacted the Radar site). Did Wertz hear there was a radar contact to the south and then looked for a UFO or did he see a UFO to the south and then the AF found a contact? We will never know since nobody (BB or NICAP) bothered to obtain a formal interview/statement from either witness.

About this time, the story about the jets trying to intercept the UFO happens. Depending on the source, it was between 1259 and 1310Z. This is, at most, 9 minutes after the F-102’s took off (They were airborne at 1301Z). The distance from Portland Airport to Redmond airport is 100 nautical miles. That means the aircraft would need to have flown at an average speed of 667 knots to reach Redmond. Top speed would have been higher. Needless to say, this would have produced a sonic boom. This is not mentioned by either of the witnesses. Dickerson told McDonald he did not see any aircraft and stated the information about jets being in the area came from Wertz. The USAF report states that the radar site was directing the aircraft. This means, they were not sent to Redmond airport but to the radar contact dozens of miles to the south of the airport. This brings into question the story of jets trying

to intercept the visual UFO. Based on the information available, this “interception” seems to be more “wishful thinking” than factual information. There is no mention of it in the log.

This brings us to the radar contact. Radar identified a stationary target that was, according to the FAA, 25 miles south of Redmond and at an altitude of 52,000 feet. The Blue Book file indicates the radar contact was over a Gapfiller radar site near La Pine Oregon on Paulina Peak. This was roughly 40 miles south of the airport. The Blue Book file states that multiple F-102 jet interceptors made multiple passes, at varying altitudes, over the target for the next 9 hours. In addition to these high speed aircraft, a helicopter and propeller aircraft, which had a Geiger counter, were also sent to the radar contact. No radiation was detected and nothing was seen visually by any of the aircraft.

In a letter to Senator Jackson, the Air Force indicated that the four senior controllers on duty at the time determined that the target was due to the gapfiller site. According to the Blue Book file, this area over the gapfiller site, was prone to producing false targets:

Since 24 September 1959 several instances have been observed by these directors wherein non-moving radar returns appear in the same location as JB 129. It is their opinion that under certain atmospheric conditions, radar echoes from the gap filler antenna in that location are received.10

Another document states that it was not the gapfiller radar but a mountain peak that normally was out of range that was producing the radar returns.11 This implies that atmospheric refraction played a role in extending the radar horizon.

Blue Book did not gather any radiosonde data to look for temperature inversions. The nearest radiosonde launch from historical data comes from Medford, Oregon, 50 miles to the WNW of the AF radar at Keno, Oregon.12 Keno had an FPS-20 search radar and FPS-6 height finding radar.13 Both had ranges of over 200 nautical miles. Medford recorded a temperature inversions between 1538 and 3151 meters at 1200Z. This could have cause the radar beam to refract and see distant peaks as false targets.

The bottom line is that the radar contact was there for a good period of time and not one aircraft could locate any solid object producing it. The location was prone to producing false echoes under certain conditions and, therefore, one can conclude the radar contact had nothing to do with the visual sighting.

Conclusion

Based on the information I have provided here, it is my opinion that this sighting can be classified as probably Venus with possibly Sirius explaining the visual sighting to the south. The radar contact was demonstrated to be a false target. This case should be removed from both the Weinstein catalog and NICAP’s “UFO Evidence”.

Quelle: SUNlite 2/2025