A 67-year-old security guard, on night duty at a lumber yard, reported firing six shots at a cigar-shaped UFO, and later, finding four of the flattened bullets which he said had fallen to the ground after ineffective impact with the UFO. Faced with police evidence, the guard admitted that the bullets were ones fired at a steel drum and that the "sighting" of the UFO was fictitious.
The witness reported firing six shots from his .38 caliber revolver at an 80-100 ft. long, cigar-shaped UFO which was hovering at about 50 ft. in the air at a distance of some 100 ft. The initial report of the incident was made at 3:50 a.m. PDT and the local police immediately made a preliminary investigation. At 8:00 a.m. on the same day, the witness reported finding four flattened slugs which he said he dug out of furrows in the asphalt surface.
The witness said that after being fired at, the object rose slowly at first, then sped out of sight in a westerly direction. A bluish-green light, which surrounded the UFO, went out after the second shot. The object made no noise until it sped away, at which point the sound was comparable to that of an idling automobile motor.
A project investigator arrived at about 8:00 p.m. By this time, the witness had changed his story saying that he had made a mistake and was now sure that he had fired at a balloon. He said he shot at it only once, and that there was no visible effect,
if in fact he hit it at all. The flattened slugs were ones he had saved from earlier target practice, and he had produced them on the spur of the moment, to embellish his UFO story.
Police investigation had showed that the furrows in the ground, from which the bullets had alledgedly been retrieved, were made by bullets entering them at a 30-40° angle. It appeared more likely that the slugs were fired directly into the asphalt, and had not fallen to it as reported. However, the witness later asserted that he had made the furrows with a ball-peen hammer. In addition, police investigation had turned up a steel drum, with numerous holes and indentations on it from bullet impact. When presented with this evidence, the witness admitted having fired at the drum for target practice about a month before, and said that the slugs in question were some of those which had struck the drum.
There were no other reports of any unusual sightings in the vicinity on that day.
In view of the witness's own admission that he had fabricated the story, no further investigation or comment was deemed necessary.