.jpg){kind=link}
The early-morning Wittenoom reports of 2 August 1964 became a story of a large, low-flying, windowed object. The original forms preserve a less uniform picture. Three men at the mine described something rocket-like, while a fourth observer on the road recorded a streak with several accompanying lights and a much greater estimated height. Those differences matter when assessing the later meteor explanation.
What was forwarded to the RAAF
A covering letter in National Archives file A703, 580/1/1 Part 4, item 645645, on PDF page 182, forwards four eyewitness proformas from Wittenoom Gorge. The named observers are Antoni Uchanski, Juszczyk, Edo Rossi and Alexander Brian Elder. The forwarding paperwork is later than the August sighting, so its filing date must not be substituted for the incident.
The forms identify different workplaces and observation positions around the mine and gorge. They are separate records of the witnesses’ descriptions, rather than four identical copies of a single narrative. Each is useful for comparing what was said about sound, movement, apparent form and the position of the object against the hills.
Three mine observers
Uchanski’s form, on PDF pages 184–185, describes a single rocket-like object and a body longer than an aeroplane. He records yellow-orange light and blue close to it, but does not identify the body’s own colour or report structural detail. He heard no sound. His estimate of height is qualified by difficulty judging it.
Juszczyk’s form on pages 186–187 likewise describes a rocket-like object, travelling horizontally and remaining on a straight course. His colour entry refers to orange and yellow lights in windows, although the separate structural-detail question is answered negatively. That tension is present in the form itself and should not be smoothed into a fully resolved view of a manufactured object.
Rossi, a mill foreman, describes a body resembling an aeroplane’s but longer and wider. His form on pages 188–189 mentions red lights or windows and alternating white light, while again leaving the object’s colour unknown. He gives an approximate height above the ranges and compares the apparent speed with a familiar aircraft. Such comparisons are impressions, not measured dimensions.
Across these three forms the shared elements include light, silence, a generally straight passage and disappearance behind the hills or ranges. Their estimates differ, and none supplies a measured range. An apparent height above a skyline cannot on its own determine how far beyond that skyline the source actually lay.
Elder’s different account
Elder’s form on PDF pages 190–191 places him on the road in Wittenoom Gorge, travelling towards the mine. He gives 3.10 am and about two minutes, rather than simply the approximate 3 am used by the other observers. He first perceived one large object and then several: roughly six or seven, with an elongated streak accompanied by discs of light.
He drew the arrangement within the form and described it as golden-yellow. He recorded no structure, propulsion or sound. His estimated height was above 20,000 feet, and he described an angular passage of about 90 degrees in two minutes. This differs dramatically from the low-altitude impressions in the mine forms.
The timing and general movement make comparison worthwhile, but they do not eliminate the differences. This archive record does not contain a reconstruction proving that every observer saw precisely the same physical object from a known range. Elder’s drawing is evidence of his reported appearance, not a measured plan of a craft.
The nearby Onslow reports and the official assessment
A separate RAAF Pearce letter dated 5 August, on PDF pages 208–209, concerns Onslow-area reports from 1 and 2 August. For the second episode, three men east of Onslow reportedly saw a bright head and incandescent tail moving south to north at about 3.15 am. The account distinguishes the disappearance of the head from the lingering glow of the tail.
A Department of Air reply dated 10 August, on page 207, assesses the sightings reported in that Onslow letter as meteor activity, with reference to Mount Stromlo advice, and says further investigation is unnecessary. That is a documented official assessment of those reports. It is not a letter demonstrating that the later-filed Wittenoom forms had been matched to the same meteor.
The regional and temporal proximity makes the Onslow correspondence relevant context. It does not justify treating different locations as a single surveyed track or silently extending an official conclusion beyond the reports the correspondence identifies.
A later reassessment
In his 2012 archival review, Keith Basterfield explains that his earlier catalogue had relied on Michael Hervey’s published description of a cigar shape with windows and a very low altitude. After examining the forms, he questioned that close-encounter interpretation. He also distinguished a police reconstruction mentioned in the file from a drawing made directly by a witness.
Basterfield favoured a bright meteor, citing brightness, multiple colours, a straight course and the absence of sound. His review is an argued reinterpretation of the original records. It is valuable precisely because it revises an earlier classification, but it remains distinct from a recovered object or independently measured trajectory.
UKPX records the outcome as Possibly Explained. The meteor hypothesis has a published evidential argument, while the original forms retain uncertainties over height, timing and perceived structure. A probable ordinary stimulus should not be relabelled a demonstrated identification.
Historical location, photograph and access
The year filter records 1964. The 2012 review and the later publication of digitised files are source-history dates. The cigar filter describes the published elongated-form account; multiple-lights follows Elder’s explicit description of accompanying discs of light. Neither establishes a vehicle, occupants or extraterrestrial identity, and no radar detection is inferred.
The map marks an approximate former Wittenoom town-area reference at 22.24° S, 118.33° E, rounded from the checked locality record. It identifies no witness’s home, mine position or object location. Wilford Peloquin’s photograph dates to 1969 and is historical landscape context.
The Western Australian Government describes Wittenoom as a closed, asbestos-contaminated site. This case is not enabled as a public place, and its historical photograph and approximate pin provide no permission or route for visiting the town or gorge.