Brixham and Berry Head observation area, Devon, England
Incident period: 28 April 1967
Coastguards watching the Devon sky described a slowly revolving, cone-shaped object that remained visible for more than an hour. Their account includes an approaching aircraft, a detailed drawing and a public argument over official comments. The contemporary publications preserve the observation more clearly than they establish its much-repeated radar association.
A long observation in daylight
The Brixham account belongs to 28 April 1967 and is associated with the coastguard station at Berry Head. Brian F. Jenkins was the principal named observer in the surviving reporting. Unlike many stories about brief lights at night, this concerned a substantial daytime observation made from a coastal watch station.
The American organisations NICAP and APRO both reported the case soon afterwards. NICAP’s May–June 1967 UFO Investigator gave the start as 11.25 am and described a period of around eighty minutes. APRO’s May Bulletin rounded the main observation to noon until about one o’clock. Those timings are broadly compatible descriptions of a prolonged event, rather than evidence for two separate Brixham encounters.
The object was initially estimated at around 15,000 feet. Jenkins described it as hovering, with a gradual drift towards the north-west. That height was an observational estimate; the surviving magazine account does not present a calibrated range measurement linked to an identified target.
The shape in Jenkins’s drawing
The striking feature was a large cone-like form that appeared to turn slowly. A door-like feature was described on its side, while a hanging or curtain-like lower section seemed to change shape. Reports emphasised a bright, reflective appearance in sunlight.
Jenkins made a detailed drawing. Later reproductions show several views, but those are illustrations of the observation rather than separate photographs establishing a rotating sequence. The original APRO report was still asking whether photographs had been obtained; it did not supply an authenticated coastguard film.
The drawn object’s apparent construction gave the case its memorable character. The reported opening and lower skirt were visual impressions at a considerable estimated altitude. No entry into the object, occupant or message formed part of Jenkins’s contemporary account.
An aircraft comes close
NICAP’s report attributed a particular sequence to Jenkins around 12.40 pm. An aircraft with a conspicuous vapour trail approached from the north-east, passed above the object, turned and approached below it. The trail faded and the aircraft was lost from view. A little later the object disappeared into cloud.
The introductory sentence in that same publication compressed the departure into an object shooting away as an aircraft approached. Jenkins’s longer quoted sequence is more specific: it includes a manoeuvring aircraft and subsequent cloud loss. The fuller sequence should be retained instead of treating the dramatic introductory shorthand as a separate, timed acceleration measurement.
Timothy Good’s later account reproduced Jenkins’s drawing and described the aircraft as resembling a Lightning interceptor. That is a reported resemblance, not an aircraft identification confirmed here by a squadron record or flight log. The visual presence of an aircraft and the claim that one had been deliberately dispatched are different questions.
Why the official comments caused an argument
APRO reported an initial Ministry of Defence denial of receiving a report, followed by a statement acknowledging that a report had arrived but had not been logged. It also quoted suggestions involving reflected car headlights or a meteorological phenomenon. The bulletin was conveying the contemporary press dispute, not reproducing the Ministry’s complete original case file.
Coastguard spokesman Harry Johnson objected strongly to the headlights suggestion, stressing that it had been daylight and that trained observers had watched something reflecting sunlight. This disagreement became a central part of the story: the observers felt the public explanation did not address the circumstances they had described.
Jenkins also showed his drawing to a senior air officer who visited the station. APRO places that visit a few days after the observation; NICAP’s shorter account leaves the timing less clear. The visit demonstrates discussion of the drawing, but it should not be expanded into a claim that the visiting officer personally watched the entire sighting or confirmed its origin.
The radar claim and its actual source
NICAP headed its item as a British radar-and-visual case. Within the text, however, the radar element was attributed to a senior RAF controller at Plymouth and a newspaper report. APRO likewise relayed a controller’s statement that he understood the object had been tracked.
Those are interesting contemporary claims, but they are not the same thing as a radar plot included with the coastguards’ observation. Neither of the magazine items examined here supplies the target’s recorded track, the instrument settings, a named radar operator’s signed report or a demonstrated match between a radar return and the observed cone.
The coastguards’ extended visual account can therefore be described in detail without upgrading the radar association beyond its surviving provenance. This matters particularly when comparing Brixham with cases such as West Freugh, where the surviving investigation concerns the radar measurements themselves.
From coastal report to enduring case
NICAP linked its item to information supplied to J. A. Hennessey and to the London Sunday Express of 21 May. APRO carried many of the same reported remarks. The two publications show the story circulating during 1967, but repeated newspaper quotations should not be mistaken for wholly independent investigations.
Good’s later treatment helped preserve the drawing and the longer description for readers outside the original magazine audience. Its estimates of the object’s dimensions were tied to comparisons with the approaching aircraft. Such estimates depend on perceived relative distances as well as apparent size; the drawing alone is not a scale survey.
The enduring attraction is the observation itself: an extended daylight watch, a changing cone-like form, a drawn record and an aircraft apparently manoeuvring nearby. The open questions concern how those observations relate to balloons or other aerial activity and what original official reporting survives beyond the published exchanges. No complete resolution is supplied by the source material examined for this file.
Timeline
28 April 1967, late morning to early afternoon: Jenkins and fellow coastguard observers report the high-altitude object near Brixham.
During the observation: an aircraft is described passing above and then approaching below the object.
A subsequent visit: Jenkins shows his drawing to a senior air officer, according to APRO’s contemporary account.
21 May 1967: the Sunday Express covers the story, as cited by NICAP.
May–June 1967: APRO and NICAP publish accounts and the controversy over official comments.
Sources & further reading
NICAP UFO Investigator 4/1: British Radar/Visual Case — Contemporary published account, including the longer sequence attributed to Jenkins and the stated newspaper source.
APRO Bulletin, May 1967: Brixham report — Contemporary reporting on the date, observation, official comments and drawing; its radar claim is attributed reporting rather than a reproduced plot.
Timothy Good: Above Top Secret, illustrated Brixham account — Later preservation of Jenkins’s drawing and aircraft comparison; distinguish this from a contemporary radar record.
Brixham locality reference — Ordnance Survey Open Names-derived broad town position.
Related case files
Devon’s Flying Cross: the police pursuit of October 1967
West Freugh, 1957: the Scottish radar incident and the Air Ministry papers
Location note: Broad Brixham reference for the coastguard observation. It is not a plotted position of the high-altitude object or an aircraft interception.
UKPX historical case file. Researched and checked 4 November 2026. Explore the UK case map · Links & Sources.