Observation: I was driving from adelaide to sydney for a friends engagement. My partner was asleep in the front seat.

I had just driven through the Haig Plains (not sure of spelling) in NSW it was around midnight or so when I saw this huge white round light appear in the sky it was bigger than the moon, and whiter than any of the stars or moon in the sky. I turned a bend in the road and there it was it was descending and then hovered above my car I was trying to wake my partner up to tell him to look and it just took off directly upwards into the sky and became smaller and smaller till it disappeared. This all happened within a split of a second so fast and yet the distance it went upwards was incredible it ended up being a small dot then couldn't see it any more.

Description: No it was round I didn't see any metal or any thing just a big round light about 2 times bigger than a full moon. Location: I think the Stuart hwy just after the Haig Plains I was coming down a winding hill and there was some sort of power station near Other Witnesses: Rick but he did not see anything did not manage to wake him up in time, it happened too fast. - Apparent Size Other: twice as big as the moon. - Altitude: it is hard to tell but i think when it was just hovering there 20 story building Object Origin: I think from straight up I was travelling east - Object Destination: straight up towards the east - Moon Visible: yes I don't know where it was but I remember looking at the moon and thinking this thing was way brighter than the moon- Moon Size Comparison: about 2 times the size or bigger. - Weather Visibility: Clear - Weather Comments: it was night, sky very clear out in the middle of nowhere. Effects Physical: no just very afraid - Effects Psychological: petrified.


26.02.87 TANUNDA, SA 1140hrs (DO)
Source: RAAF file 6/16/Air part 1 Unusual Aerial Sightings 92WG Intel RAAF Edinburgh. First seen 75 deg N. Passed directly overhead. Eight white lights. Seen with naked eye and binoculars. Duration: 15 minutes. AURA


28.02.87 WOOPEN CREEK, QLD 0410hrs (CE1)
QB 1987-004
The single male witness had been sleeping. He awoke at 4.10am to visit the toilet, upon walking to the back window of his house he observed ten brightly lit objects in the sky outside. The objects were stationary and arranged in a U-shaped formation approximately 500 metres distant and about 25 degrees elevation in the sky to the north-west. The witness observed the objects for approximately twenty minutes, during which time the whole of the objects remained stationary although each individually moved randomly from side to side (horizontal movement). Each object appeared as a round, bright yellow light, with a separate outer ring of brighter flickering yellow lights. The witness left the window for approximately nine minutes and, upon returning found the objects no longer present.

No sound was heard by the witness, and although his two pet dogs were nearby in the house, they seemed un-disturbed during the incident.

SKETCH

26.03.87 POSSIBLE LOCATION SA 2021hrs (NL)
Source: RAAF file 6/16/Air part 1 Unusual Aerial Sightings 92WG Intel RAAF Edinburgh
One red long cigar shaped object seen 45 deg SW to 45 deg NE. Assessed of no military significance. Duration: 10 seconds. AURA


30th MAY; WOOPEN CREEK, QLD 2300hrs
QB 1987-008
Two police officers driving a patrol car west on Woopen Creek Road at approximately 1000hrs observed an object move across the sky, above the road ahead. Both sides of the road where the sighting occurred, are flanked by sugar cane fields, which afforded the witnesses a limited view of the object. The officers described a bright green circular light, about thirty metres altitude and about 400 metres distant. The object left no trail and travelled in a straight horizontal trajectory. Both officers first considered the object to be a flare as it appeared similar in size. A check was made at nearby farms by the officers to establish where the light had come from, without success.


01.06.87 MAIDENHEAD STATION (nr.TEXAS), QLD 2130-2330hrs (CE1) QA 1987-013 - PERSONAL ASSESSMENT BY JOHN WALSH
As will all UFO sightings there are always curious and inexplicable features of UFO sightings that, on the surface seem credible enough at first sight. This is not to say that I disbelieve the sighting in any way, on the contrary I feel that the witnesses are level-headed individuals who have nothing to gain from distortion of the events as described to me and the other investigators present. The total distance between the two properties is about six kilometres in a near north/south direction. The object was sighted about four kilometres north of Maidenhead homestead over rather featureless hilly, lightly wooded sheep farming property lying between the Chandler property and the Maidenhead homestead property. The object was first sighted by Mrs Vivien Wallis and she phoned the neighbouring property and alerted Jenny Chandler of Benandre property. She then alerted her husband and daughter who all saw the object. Mrs Wallis viewed the object through X10 field glasses and though she was further away, would have seen more detail than the Chandlers who viewed with the naked eye. Mrs Chandler is a little short sighted and said that her report may not be as good as her daughters. This is to be taken with the weight of the rest of the report. Night sightings are always difficult and on moonless nights, it is difficult to locate the bearing over difficult terrain. Both groups of observers seem to be viewing the same object as they agreed to the location of the event in a particular valley between the properties. Using a prismatic compass, the size of the object is in agreement, from the angles subtended by the viewers. A curious feature of the sighting was the obvious mismatch in the bearings leading to an imprecision in the location of the object in an east/west direction of about two kilometres. This will be discussed later. The description of the object differed slightly between the observers. Mrs Wallis saw no real outline except a dull apricot glow, however the Chandlers saw a more definite oval shape within the glow. Mrs Wallis saw three rows of lights. The topmost set were very tiny, and were lemon yellow, and flashed erratically and rapidly 'like Christmas tree lights'. The second row below these top little lights were oval red large lights. These were characterized by being very bright and were like disco light chasers moving from left to right as she was viewing it. The third row of lights were like portholes on a ship, green coloured, smaller than the red lights but larger than the yellow lights. There were a large number of red and green lights, and fewer yellow lights arrayed about the periphery.

The description given by the Chandlers differ in the type and form of the lights. Mrs Jenny Chandler saw a slightly flattened sphere with red and green lights only, whereas Miss Kelly Chandler saw a very flattened cigar shape with all types of coloured lights, red, green, blue, and white flashing and moving in a band from left to right. It is to be remarked that the Chandlers were only two kilometres away from the 100 metre diameter object, however they viewed it with the naked eye. Mrs Vivien Wallis viewed with X10 binoculars and should have a better description of the details of the object overall. All viewers agreed that it was very dark and the exact bearing of the object would have been difficult under these conditions. There is considerable disagreement between Jenny and her daughter Kelly leading to a possible discrepancy 0.5 kilometre E/W in a distance of two kilometres (ratio .25). All viewers seem to confirm the same overall size of the object allowing for the distance. Mrs Wallis has the greatest discrepancy of around 1.5 kilometers from the mean position of the other two, however this may be a better estimate since this is over a distance of four kilometers (ratio .375). These ratios can be evaluated from the map and depends on which observer's reckoning is the more accurate. Another factor is the elapsed space of time between the observation and our recording of this information. Time blurs details once fresh in the mind.

I am convinced personally, that the two groups saw something, and that it was about 100 metres in diameter. Mr Tom Wallis was not present at his wife's sighting and Mr Chandler, though present, was not able to be present at our interviews. This was a bit of a dilemma as to the accuracy of the observations in terms of compass bearings. None of the women had used a compass before, nor an abney level for determining the elevation (about four degrees). The object was seen for about two hours. Rising slowly above the surrounding hills. No evidence of ground trace was seen, however after such a period of time between the event and our efforts to find a ground trace, it is not surprising. No noise was made by the brightly illuminated object as it rose tediously upwards into the sky. Mrs Wallis agreed that the object looked very much like the Swan Airship, however this was not in the area at the time and did not have correct lighting for such a vehicle.

I now digress into speculation to attempt some explanation for its strange behavior.

Question 1:
Why did the object ascend so slowly into the sky?

Answer:
I believe that the object was attempting to avoid radar contact. Radar screens are of two kinds. The first kind is the normal radar which picks up reflections from all objects, both big and small, the interpretation is made by the observer as to what is a 'target' and what is not a target. Since the object ascended in quiet, hilly territory near the border ranges, a spot that did not move in latitude or longitude would not be noticed since spots come and go in the area. The other kind of radar would be the kind that discriminates moving objects from stationary objects. This is done by computer processing all the reflected data and comparisons are made between successive sweeps to see any differences between these pictures. To remove the presence of reflections from motor cars, the signals are processed to remove all objects whose speeds are below a critical threshold (say 120Km/hr), this leaves a relatively 'clean' radar screen showing only planes and objects having the necessary high speed to show up as moving objects. 'Knowns' such as Civil and Military aircraft respond to the beacons interrogating signal and re-transmits an identification signal which identifies the aircraft on the screen. We know that the UFO was not spinning, at least physically, on the outside. This slow moving object would not be seen on either type of radar. The isolation of the site makes it unlikely that any other property would have seen it until it was high in the sky. Another possibility is that it was performing some kind of reconnaissance. The area is not obviously distinctive, but who are we to say what is interesting or not to possible occupants of such a vehicle. another possibility is that it was damaged and was being repaired at the time.

Question 2:
Why was there so much of a discrepancy between the two groups of sightings, and even so much variation within the Chandler sightings themselves?

Answer:
On a dark night it is difficult to determine exact bearings, especially since the observers in both cases, at least the ones available, are not conscious of the necessity of bearings and in the absence of any outstanding landmarks, exact location is difficult anyway. There was a great deal of discrepancy of detail between the two groups and this bodes well for the fact that there was a lack of collaboration between the families. This is a 'good' sign bearing in mind the lack of expertise among them. This is not all that good for determining real facts on the matter. A good point was the agreement as to where it was roughly as both families reckoned it to be. The Chandlers said the object was 'small' and Mrs Wallis said it was 'large'. The angle subtended at the Wallis' property (between 19.5 and 21.0N) was half that subtended at the Chandler's property (between 195 and 198S or between 187 and 189S). This suggests that the object was 2/3 the distance between the two properties. The size on that scale is consistently 100 metres. It is possible that the object moved back and forth over the valley during the course of the two hours and the discrepancy is due to the different periods when it was seen by the observers. There were overlapping times of viewing. Only Mrs Wallis watched for two hours. Another possible explanation is an optical phenomena produced by the distorting field of the UFO, leading to a refractive index variation outwards from the UFO. This would lead to a possible curving of the light path away from the UFO. If this was the case perhaps the UFO hovered above the roadway between the properties, it would be a reasonable compromise as to it's position. The different means of viewing, may have led to perceptual variation as well. We may never know.

Question 3:
The size and colourful nature of this UFO makes it very unusual in UFO lore, it looked like something out of Close Encounters of the Third Kind rather than the normal UFO?

Answer:
I think that there are many similiarities between this sighting and the Gill sightings in New Guinea decades before. It is a pity that more detail is not known. The hovering nature, the ambient glow around it, even the sparkling lights on the top of the UFO suggest a similiar origin. No 'aliens' were seen on the top but a suggestion that there may have been a fault in the object is made by Mrs Wallis with the suggestion that one of the red lights was not quite as bright as the others. Could they have stopped for emergency repairs in this deserted area and, hovered for a while then attempted 'communication' with another ship while repairs were being made? The little yellow rapidly but irregularly flashing lights on the top of the object could have been used to signal a mother craft in deep space using directed laser communication. Radio could be monitored by our communications, whereas laser optical communication is virtually impossible to intercept and impossible to jam. This was seen with the Gill sightings and I think we can see similiarities here too.

Conclusion:
No ultimate conclusion can be drawn from so little information. My speculations are just that without further detail. Contact was made with the families involved and if an event of this kind occurs again, then more expedient measures will be taken. An awareness of the phenomena may make the residents more receptive to signs and attributes of UFO landings. A good PR exercise in all. Though all witnesses believed the object was cigar shaped, the report detail suggests that it could have been more easily explained by the object having an oblate spheroid shape, no end on view was seen.

I would like to thank the Wallis family for putting us up for the night.


JULY 1987 nr TULLY, QLD 0010hrs (CE1)
QA 1987-017
A car serviceman was sitting outdoors when he saw an object shaped like a Mexican sombrero turned upside down. It had cream, red and orange lights revolving around a 'cupola'. The object moved across the sky and disappeared behind the foothills of Mt Markett in the north-west. Duration: fifteen minutes.


13.07.87 PORT LINCOLN (CE1)
Source: RAAF file 6/16/Air part 1 Unusual Aerial Sightings 92WG Intel RAAF Edinburgh
Object triangular with red and green lights passed over car at low altitude. Assessed as no military significance-possibly an aircraft-not RAAF. AURA


11.08.87 nr.PETERBOROUGH, SA (CE2)
RAAF file 6/16/Air part 1 Unusual Aerial Sightings 92WG Intel RAAF Edinburgh citing RAAF have not heard of this report directly, record of conversation with a Broken Hill newspaper
Bus driver reported a bright green light traveled parallel to the bus. Affected bus electrics. AURA


24.08.87 MT ISA, QLD 1805hrs (DO + PHOTO)
Source: North West Star, Mt Isa 28.10.87
NA 1987-002
Witnesses were at a scenic lookout waiting to photograph the sunset when they saw an object approach from the east and travel in front of them towards the west. The object flew into the smoke plume emanating from a chimney stack, moved up in the plume, and then moved out and away again. A single photograph was taken using a Ricoh 35mm camera with 70/210mm zoom lens. The photo shows the object as a silver-foil, 'teddy-bear' shaped object. The witnesses' subjective estimate of the object's size was that of a small car. Duration was a few minutes.

NOTE: The sighting was also reported to the RAAF. A story about the sighting was published in the local newspaper but did not bring forward any further witnesses. The described appearance of the object is suggestive of a balloon. However, prior to entering the smoke plume, the object had moved in a steady, straight path apparently against the wind direction - as indicated by the behaviour of the plume in previous photographs.


06.10.87 BRISBANE (BRIGHTON), QLD 1935hrs (NL)
QA 1987-020
Fisherman observed a bright silver 'star' which was stationary for ten minutes. It then slowly moved towards the north-west, and then the north-east, in an upwards zig-zag motion. The light faded and disappeared after twenty to thirty seconds.


09.10.87 ADELAIDE (PARAFIELD), SA 2145hrs (NL)
Source: RAAF file 6/16/Air part 1 Unusual Aerial Sightings 92WG Intel RAAF Edinburgh.
Bright soundless ball flew over. AURA


27.10.87 SYDNEY, NSW 0230hrs (NL)
Source: Associated Press 10/27 0122 BRF Australia-UFO
Orange and red lights streaked across the sky over Sydney early today, sparking a rash of reports of unidentified flying objects.

The Daily Mirror, a Sydney newspaper, said that police switchboards were jammed with calls from people claiming to have seen a UFO. But astronomers who watched the lights from the Canberra Mount Stromlo Observatory said they believed the phenomena was caused by space "junk" returning to earth.

In a statement, professors Don Mathewson and Vince Ford said that at about 2:30 a.m. they saw a streak of fire move from northwest to southeast parallel to the horizon.

"At first we thought it might have been an aircraft on fire but our best guess now is that it was a very large bit of space debris re-entering the earth's atmosphere," they said.