November 30, 1968 – Kent, Washington – 6:20 AM PST

PAGE OUT OF BOOK SHOWING ARTICLE & PHOTOS OF BOEING UFO SIGHTINGS.

PAGE OUT OF BOOK SHOWING ARTICLE & PHOTOS OF BOEING UFO SIGHTINGS.

 

Description: This sighting report (with photos) was discovered by Seattle Author Andrew Colvin in a book titled: “UFO’S From Behind The Iron Curtain” by Ion Hobana and Julien Weverbergh. This case was brought to my attention by another Seattle researcher (Brian R.).
Brian R’s note follows:
I recently picked up an old UFO book called UFOS FROM BEHIND THE IRON CURTAIN by Ion Hobana and Julien Weverbergh. While thumbing through it, I was surprised to see a couple photos of a UFO that supposedly hovered over Boeing’s Space Research Laboratories in Kent, WA for three weeks in November of 1968. I’ve attached a picture of the two photographs from the book.

I was actually told about this case a couple months ago by author/publisher Andrew Colvin. We both live in Seattle, and I occasionally communicate with him through Facebook. He couldn’t remember many details about the case. He recalled that the UFO was visible for three weeks. At the time, I found that pretty hard to believe. I mean, three weeks? I did a brief search online for information, but couldn’t find anything.

I became a lot more interested when I got this book and actually looked at photos of the UFO attributed to this case. I did a lot more digging online and I turned up absolutely nothing. I spent literally hours searching online, and I found no mention of this case whatsoever. I know there is at least one book that discusses this case, because I own the book and have seen the photos. My search should have at least turned up the Amazon page or the Google-books page for UFOS FROM BEHIND THE IRON CURTAIN. What’s more, Andy Colvin told me he thought Jacques Vallee had written about this case in one of his books, although he couldn’t remember which one. So, definitely one book discusses this case, and probably another book as well. My search should have at least turned up a page for one of these books, but it didn’t. This seems a little suspicious. But maybe even more suspicious is the lack of any online commentary or speculation about this case from the online UFO community. So far as I can tell, nobody has ever mentioned this case on A.T.S. or any other UFO forum or site. Usually if you look up any UFO case online, you are guaranteed to turn up page after page of forum discussions about it. So, why hasn’t anyone commented on this case?

One further suspicious point about this case: If the UFO really was visible for three weeks, there probably would have been local newspaper coverage about it. You would also expect some kind of official explanation for the event, especially considering it’s close proximity to Boeing’s Space Research Laboratories. I searched for local news stories from November, 1968 that might mention this case, and I searched for any public statements Boeing might have made at the time to explain away the event. I found nothing.

Additional Comments Regarding This Case: I noticed that in Appendix C at the back of UFOS FROM BEHIND THE IRON CURTAIN, it says that the two photos of the Kent UFO were originally published in Flying Saucer Review Special Issue No. 2. I haven’t been able to find a copy online anywhere. Mr. Colvin told me that he ordered a CDROM of digitized FSR issues some time ago, but that he had never received it.

William Puckett Writes: I searched the Air Force Project Blue Book archives and this case was not reported. I checked the indices of all of Jacques Vallee’s books in my library and didn’t find any references to Kent, Seattle, or Boeing. This is kind of strange that little information is available about this case.

Brian R. found the article in Flying Saucer Review (FSR)
Special Report Number 2:  Click here to read article (PDF)

Brian R. Wrote the Following Commentary on the FSR Article:

I definitely think the case was legitimate. It just seems to me that the article itself is somewhat suspicious.  Reading between the lines of the article, I noticed three odd details:

1. The 14 year old photographer is/was the son of two Boeing employees who both worked at the Kent plant.

2. The blurb under photo A includes the sentence “When  will Boeing scientists be allowed to investigate the scientific  questions of the source of power of the ufo?”

3. The fact that the Kent plant was, at the time of the sighting, working on the Apollo moon project, and the timing of the release of the article in FSR relative to the actual moon landing of June ’69.

I suspect that the UFO that was seen over that three weeks was a test vehicle related to the Apollo program and I suspect it had something to  do with how the astronauts actually got off the moon.  I think it’s very likely that there was more  technology involved in getting our astronauts off the moon than what  we’ve been told.  (I happen to believe that we did go to the moon and that the moon footage was faked for various cold war secrecy reasons.)
I think perhaps the  photographs were deliberately released through Flying Saucer Review.  I think the fact that the child photographer was the son of two Boeing employees essentially means the photos came from Boeing.   No way would two married Boeing space propulsion scientists risk both their jobs by allowing a child to release photographs of potentially highly  classified U.S. military hardware.  I guarantee you they would have  first cleared the photographs through their Boeing superiors before  allowing their son to release them to a UFO magazine.   However, I  seriously doubt any normal person in 1968 would have had the slightest  inclination to approach a boss or department head about some UFO photos  or anything having to do with UFOs.   It’s absurd. Nobody would  do that today, let alone some people working for the American space  program in 1968.   So, if the photographs are real, we have to assume  they were released with Boeing’s approval or the approval of one of  the intelligence agencies involved with Boeing at the time.    Well, I don’t believe that Boeing didn’t have UFO-like technology at the time.   As implied by the 1966 sighting report, they probably had already tested something that resembled a flying saucer.   And based on my own 2010 sighting of ten flying “spheres,” witnessed while I was standing 300 yards from Boeing airfield, I’ve become fairly convinced that Boeing has been building “UFOs” for some time.   Your admission of having been shown a secret video by a Boeing-employee friend of strange things being flight-tested at Boeing is further evidence.
Regarding the curious statement under photo A, the obvious implication is  that Boeing did not have anything like the technology of the UFO that  was sighted over the Kent plant. However, I think there’s also a more  subtly implied meaning in the phrase “When will Boeing scientists be allowed to investigate?”   Without overtly saying it, the sentence implies that Boeing would need permission from someone to investigate this UFO technology, but that permission has not been given.  Also, the  article essentially states that  whatever the UFOs were, they displayed a super-science far beyond our  own therefore they must be piloted by interplanetary intelligences.   Maybe this is a stretch, but I feel there is a subtle crash/recovery/cover-up meme woven into this article.  It implies that the UFO sighted over the area was extraterrestrial, and that Boeing did not have permission or clearance to inspect the hardware.  But how could Boeing, or anyone, possibly have inspected such hardware unless it was already in our government’s possession somehow?  So, while not overtly stating it, I think the article is subtly, implicitly slanted toward the idea of a crash/recovery/cover-up.   Quite frankly, whenever crash/recovery stories pop up, I immediately smell counterintelligence obfuscation of secret man-made technology.   So, I feel there is evidence that the article is pushing an E.T. explanation, while also implying that nothing like the sighted object was every built or operated at the Boeing plant.  Why would they need to make that point, unless they actually had operated something at the facility which they didn’t want people to find out about?
(Please don’t get me wrong – I do not think all UFO sightings represent man-made hardware. I think a lot of the nuts-and-bolts sightings probably do represent something man-made.  However, I also accept the “ultra-terrestrial” theory as explanation for many UFO sightings and encounters throughout history.)
Finally, I think it’s interesting that this FSR issue (Flying Saucer Review Special Issue No. 2) was published in June of 1969 – a month before Apollo 11 and the moon  landing.  At the time of the sightings over the Boeing Space Research plant in 1968, Boeing would have been furiously working on Apollo/moon-landing hardware, which took place just eight months later in July of 1969.  I would think prep and construction  for the upcoming moon-landing were the only things being worked on at the Kent plant at the time or it was their highest priority, at least.  The timing of the article is indicative of preemptive  perception management.   These sightings took place eight months before the moon landing, over a facility that was actively working on hardware for the moon-landing. It is very plausible that someone would have put two and two together and begun questioning a link between the sightings and the moon-landing.  If that happened, it could have revealed details of our space technology.   So, I think a few weeks before the moon landing was  scheduled to happen, this story was planted linking the Seattle sightings of 1968 to “science fiction creatures” (science fiction to most of the public, that is to say).  After planting this story, few people would have connected this UFO sighting case with the very mundane lunar mission technology that we were shown in 69.
I suspect they probably muzzled  local news coverage of the sightings in November of 1968, but still  needed to plant a cover story before Apollo 11 in case anything ever did come out.    That would also explain why there are so few details about this case online.  If my theory is correct, this is probably still highly classified.
 
Anyway, that’s what I made of the article.   I would be very interested to know whether you find any validity to my theory.
By the way – just out of curiosity, can you tell me whether anything you were shown in the video by your Boeing friend resembled white flying spheres or balls like the objects I witnessed in 2010?  I understand if you feel reluctant to describe what was in the video, but I would greatly appreciate it if you could confirm anything like that.  Just personal curiosity.

 Note: In reference to Mr. R.’s question above, the video I saw of a test Boeing craft was taken in a closed room.  The object made a buzzing sound and flashed around it’s edges.  The object was hovering while it buzzed. As soon as the buzzing stopped the object fell to the bottom of the room.  There was no description of the craft on the video. I recall that the clip lasted about a minute.

Anyone who has direct knowledge or knows of additional references to this sighting is urged to file a report.

Note to Commenters: If you are reporting a sighting, be sure to include the location (city, state, country), date and time of your sighting. Be detailed in your description. You may also use our report form to report your sighting. Comments will only be published if they are in "good taste" and not inflammatory. Also the name that you list in the comment will be posted. Use abbreviations or aliases if you don't want your name listed.
This entry was posted in 1989 and earlier, conical-shaped, Photos, UFO Sightings Washington, Unidentified. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to November 30, 1968 – Kent, Washington – 6:20 AM PST

  1. Jon says:

    There is a pretty cheesy UFO documentary titled “Overlords of the UFOs” in which a teacher of Scott Sylte developed his pictures of the South Renton, WA UFO. It can be found on Youtube. This is a low resolution copy of the film. I’m sure there are better copies available. The URL I’ve included is time-linked to the interview.
    https://youtu.be/q1XrgZfnDTA

    This link is to a paper written by William Gorden Allen, a UFO researcher, on the same story:
    https://tinyurl.com/rnrqps2

    • Brian R says:

      Oh, cool. Thank you!

      I dug up an old newspaper article about the sightings and got the names of some of the other witnesses. One of them is now a police chief in Wisconsin. He confirmed that he saw something he couldn’t explain, but informed me that the object in the photographs does not look like what he saw. He believed the photographs were faked.

      I also spoke to the elderly parents of the boy who took the photographs. They told me that someone from the Air Force came to their house shortly after the FSR article was published, asking if the Air Force could examine the photographs. They gave him the photos which were never returned. So, who knows?

  2. Joel Wesley Small says:

    I can understand why this person harbors some doubts and suspicions in reference to some of the UFO reports that involve sightings around the Washington Boeing plants, and the seeming deafening and logic defying lack of other reports about this supposed three week long incident. I’ve never heard of this either, but I know of other UFO incidents that have supposedly occurred over other notable areas such as the incident that happened over the Hartford nuclear power station and research center that I believe is or was in Washington State in 1945. It was there that the atomic substances for the first nuclear bombs were created, and according to some reports I’ve come across, there was actually a military aircraft scrambled to check out and/or attack a large UFO that hovered for some time over this plant. I read a report that was supposibly given by one of the pilots who flew the plane or one of them that encountered that UFO which he said was sitting over the plant. The pilot said that the object didn’t stay long enough to be engaged as it moved away as the plane(s) approached. What I found so odd is that there seems that there was no ‘follow-up’ or investigation as to what this thing was over the plant! I mean, our Country was in a full-tilt World War and you would think that there would have been a big, if not HUGE halabaloo if it was thought that one of our enemy, or anybody else, would have something getting anywhere even within a hundred miles of this plant, much less directly over it! Maybe there was some kind of investigation, but no-one has ever come across anything like that. And this sort of reason-defying inaction appears to have ‘happened’ in other countries around that time that involved unidentified aerial objects approaching some of our then-enemies’ military sites and aircraft, but strangely there doesn’t seem to be any trace of investigatory action after these event occurred. It’s enough to make you scratch your head, or just bang your head against a wall!

    • Administrator says:

      UFO sightings near nuclear plants and military bases with nuclear weapons are quite common. I do have some “recollection” of reading about the Hanford incident. The Hanford plant is still operating and produces some electricity for Washington State.

      • Brian R says:

        According to Renato Vesco, the saucers seen over the United States in the summer of 1947 were built and flown by the British, out of a secret plant in central Canada. (I have uncovered some independent information which I believe mostly confirms Vesco’s claims.) Vesco claimed that the British did not initially share their saucer technology secrets with the United States because we wouldn’t share our atomic energy/weapons secrets with them, despite the fact that they kicked in some of the dough for the Manhattan Project. It has occurred to me that if Vesco’s claims are accurate, perhaps the nine “saucers” sighted over Mt. Rainier by Kenneth Arnold in June 1947 were actually piloted by British spies, who may have been reconnoitering the Hanford plant in order to glean some of our atomic secrets.

        • Administrator says:

          Thanks for the comments. I have a book by Renato Vesco, but I haven’t read it. That is an interesting theory. I wonder if the Roswell crash was a British craft?

          • Brian R says:

            Whatever may have crashed at Roswell, I think William Rhodes got some pictures of it flying over Arizona prior to the crash. It’s very interesting that the object in his photos matches Kenneth Arnold’s saucer description almost EXACTLY.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.