Yerecoin, 1967: Alan Pool’s close encounter and the conflicting early reports

In November 1967, Western Australian farm manager Alan Pool reported that a grey, domed object approached and hovered beside his Land Rover near Yerecoin. The unusually close encounter entered international UFO literature, but its transmission also produced conflicting dates, measurements and descriptions of whether the object actually landed. The surviving early reports allow those differences to be examined rather than silently combined.

Approximate area: the map uses a rounded public village reference for Yerecoin in Western Australia’s Wheatbelt. The paddock’s precise location has not been established from the reviewed sources. The pin does not identify a private farmhouse, field entrance or visitor destination.

Recovering the date and the source

The January–February 1968 Flying Saucer Review, volume 14, number 1, printed page 32, carried an account explicitly credited to The West Australian of 17 November 1967. It describes the incident as having occurred on Wednesday evening. A later original source review by Keith Basterfield identifies that Wednesday as 15 November.

Basterfield’s 12 September 2012 investigation of the source trail reports consulting the newspaper on microfiche at the South Australian State Library. He found the principal story on pages 1 and 13 of the 17 November issue, and a follow-up on page 12 the following day. The newspaper itself has not been independently inspected here; the contemporary journal reproduction and Basterfield’s account of his original research have been read.

The November–December 1967 APRO Bulletin, page 5, instead gives 17 November, spells the witness’s first name Allen and renders the locality as Yericorn. Basterfield also acknowledges that his own older catalogue had used 16 November and Poole. These discrepancies explain why a search of later catalogues can appear to produce several encounters when the descriptions concern the same man and event.

What Pool reported seeing

In the newspaper-based version, Pool was in a paddock at about 6.30 p.m. when he heard a loud mechanical hum, compared with a strained generator. An object approaching from the east initially seemed to him to be an aircraft. He placed it several hundred feet above the ground and about half a mile away before it came down beside his vehicle. Those figures were his estimates, not measured flight data.

He described a grey metallic appearance, a rounded upper surface and a flat or saucer-like underside. The journal reproduction gives a diameter of about twelve feet and height of about six feet. Basterfield’s newspaper transcription gives about five feet in height; APRO supplies a larger diameter of fifteen to twenty feet. Keeping the variants visible is more defensible than selecting an exact set of dimensions from incompatible versions.

The newspaper-based description specifies six window-like features: a square central pair and two round ones to either side. Pool said he could not see through them. There were no visible means of propulsion. APRO adds an apparent cabin at the front, but neither account describes a clearly observed occupant. A window or cabin-like feature does not independently identify a crew.

A landing that became a hover

Both early journals present the story under a landing description. Their detailed narratives, however, say Pool first thought the object had landed and then judged it to be hovering just above the surface. When he later examined the ground, the newspaper-based account says the grass was undisturbed and there were no burn marks.

This distinction matters to the case’s evidential character. There is no reported recovered material, impression or scorched patch to support an actual touchdown. It would be misleading to turn a journal heading into a confirmed physical landing, particularly when the body of the same report qualifies that description.

Pool said that the proximity prevented him from opening the vehicle door fully. When he partly opened it and spoke, he thought his words were repeated. He rejected an ordinary echo because of the wind and position. The reviewed material provides no sound recording or acoustic examination. The repetition is therefore part of his reported experience, not an established conversation or proof of a responding intelligence.

As he began getting out, the object reportedly rose rapidly and passed beyond his view above the vehicle roof. After looking outside without seeing it again, he remained frightened before checking the ground and returning home. APRO’s account preserves the rapid ascent but does not offer a separate observer’s timed measurement.

The television and the vehicle

According to the newspaper reproduction, Pool’s wife told him that her television picture had rolled around the relevant time. APRO also reports interference at the house. She was not described as witnessing the object beside the Land Rover. No synchronized timing record, receiver test or independent account of the television disturbance appears in the reviewed sources.

The reported picture rolling must also be kept separate from a vehicle failure. The early narratives do not describe the Land Rover’s engine being disabled by the object. Basterfield’s older catalogue explicitly recorded no unusual electromagnetic effects on the vehicle. A later reader should not transform proximity to a car, an unsettling hum and a household television complaint into a measured electromagnetic event.

Official contact and missing records

Pool reportedly contacted New Norcia police, was advised to telephone Perth’s Criminal Investigation Branch, and also called RAAF Pearce. The newspaper-based journal account attributes to Wing Commander G. Shadforth the statement that no aircraft from the base was flying and nothing had been detected on radar. A Perth air-traffic spokesman nevertheless said civilian aircraft could have been in the wider area. Neither statement identifies what Pool saw.

Basterfield’s 2012 research reports finding no Pool account in the relevant central RAAF file, A703 580/1/1 Part 8, or in a fifty-two-page Western Australian file covering UFO investigations from 1966 to 1972. Those are his reported archival search results; this article has not independently audited every page of both files. His proposed possibilities—no completed form or a report kept elsewhere—remain possibilities rather than demonstrated explanations for the absence.

Assessment

The outcome is Insufficient evidence. Contemporary journal coverage and a later return to the newspaper source establish a substantial historical allegation, while showing how details changed in circulation. They do not provide a physical trace, independently recorded close encounter or tested identification. Pool’s employer’s confidence in his character explains why the claim was taken seriously, but cannot replace corroborating evidence of the reported object.