Latest UK UFO Sightings

............ Latest UFO Sightings & News from around the UK and USA. Report a UFO Sighting.




Daylight Sighting – Large Metallic Disc -Grove, Oxfordshire-May 2017

Location of Sighting: Grove, Oxfordshire
Date of Sighting:May 2017
Time: 18:30
Witness Name: David McPhail
Witness Statement: Extremely large classic UFO sighting in daylight. I spotted this when driving near Grove Oxfordshire looking north towards Hanney, in broad daylight but on a blustery cloudy evening. In a clearing in the cloud was a classic UFO of approx 500 m across! It was partly obscured by the cloud (which helped with the size determination). It was tilted over at approx 15 degrees and completely stationary. Later I found the location was likely to be over the large solar farm near Hanney. The disc was metallic with a height to the edge, alternate black and grey panels. No lights visible. A car had stopped and was filming on an iPad. This was an astonishing sighting and to my surprise nothing was ever reported on the news.
Source:?www.uk-ufo.co.uk

Comment : If you can provide further information on this or other possible UFO sightings in this area then please leave a comment or send details through our “submit sighting” form

Updated: October 9, 2017 — 9:03 am

15 Comments

Add a Comment
  1. It would be good to know what happened next David.

  2. Hi Alan, nothing happened next I’m sad to say. I went home (half a mile), told my wife (she didn’t believe me) and we made some dinner. Days later I searched local papers and web sites for news, but nothing. What else can you do? I’d like to find the chap that was out of his filming it on his iPad. I expect many encounter the same situation when you witness something amazing but no-one believes you.
    David

  3. If the guy with the iPad was to put his picture online, and it was fuzzy people would explain it away. If it was as clear as you describe, everyone would say it’s photoshopped. You can’t win.
    ps give my regards to Grove. I lived there 17 years ago, and miss the area.

  4. What I meant was David did it disappear, melt into the cloud, cloak, fade to grey, zoom off at wharp speed?

  5. “zoom off at wharp speed…”

    With respect, if you want to be taken seriously – and you have every right to – why refer to such as this, which is entirely fictional? Also, the poster has said nothing happened; why feed leading suggestions? It serves no purpose at all. (BTW, cloaking is fictional, too; so was the Philadelphia Experiment).

  6. Hi Steve,

    With the greatest of respect, Alan, to my mind is, is asking David a valid and reasonable question as to how the ‘object’ left the area.

    Though you are happy to put forward the ‘Earthly Hypothesis’
    theory, there are a vast number of reports from early UFO books
    were object/lights/craft have blinked out, faded to nothing &
    Instant acceleration, 90 degree turns, hanging imobile without any associated noise.

    Of course if you don’t possess an enquiring mind, all the above
    and anything else relating to this phenomenon is pure tosh and
    as John said it’s a ‘no win situation.

    BTW. How do you ‘know’ the Philadelpfia Experiment wasn’t real!
    was you on the poop deck at the time ;-).

  7. Thanks Chris, You have pre-empted my explanation.

  8. “Alan, to my mind is, is asking David a valid and reasonable question”

    Leading questions; he asked what happened next, the poser said ‘nothing’; then he offers a list of possible multiple choice answers!

    “Of course if you don’t possess an enquiring mind”

    I do; as I’ve said many times, in my earlier years I devoured every single source of information there was on the subject, convinced as I was that we were being visited by alien craft or whatever else you care to call them. I’m now of the opinion that evidence is flimsy, at best, but keep watching and reading for that one, solid sighting that could be nothing other. I’ve yet to find it.

    “ow do you ‘know’ the Philadelpfia Experiment wasn’t real!
    was you on the poop deck at the time ;-).”

    No, I wasn’t, and nor was anyone else. The story is one of those that gained credence in conspiracy circles, yet the evidence for it happening is non existent. It’s been widely investigated – you can use Google, it takes a few seconds to get loads of material on it – and dismissed as utter fiction. A lot can be gained from the fact it was popularized by Berlitz, who is far from a reliable source. Have a read, and keep that open mind you’re always on about, it’s an interesting example of how a fanciful tale can become something more. If, of course, you believe the US Navy ‘disappeared’ a ship in full view, then that’s up to you…

  9. Hi Steve,

    With reference your comment:

    “I’m now of the opinion that evidence is flimsy, at best, but keep watching and reading for that one, solid sighting that could be nothing other. I’ve yet to find it”.

    I wonder what it would take for you to say on viewing a video,
    photo, or sighting to say, yes this is the ‘one’ that convinces
    me!!.

    There are, as you know, thousands of photo’s taken from the 40’s
    onwards & I venture that you have seen many in your earlier days as a ‘believer’, so, anything presented to you could only be photo/video, so what future ‘solid sighting’ could possibly change your mind?.

  10. “so what future ‘solid sighting’ could possibly change your mind?.”

    Great question! Before I answer it, what has convinced you about the many photos you mention? You know my take on the Adamski pictures (and it’s not just mine, I might add) and I really can’t say I’ve seen any photo, video or anything that convinces me we are, if you like, being visited by aliens. Have you? If so, what, and where?

    What would it take to change my mind? Something extraordinary; something that is not colourful lights in the sky (there are so many possible explanations for this it’s simply pointless going there, and why would our friends from billions of light years away bother with lights? or bother with us…); something that does not resemble aircraft landing lights; something that is not a slow moving ball of orange light (don’t hear much of those these days); something that is clearly caught on one of the millions of cameras that we carry around on our person (I got a new one, it takes great pics) and not a blurry, unidentified image; something that conclusively I can be sure cannot be identified as of earthly origin – not by me, but by people who know what it is is (I had a recent discussion with someone who witnessed, in dodgy weather, a V22 Osprey flying above them; they had never seen one, and in the available light, it looked very odd indeed). Something that, when described as massive and unmissable, is actually seen by more than one person, and thus makes the news. Do you think all this unreasonable? It shouldn’t be, because for something to be convincing, reasonable doubt needs to be eliminated, and this is where we hit a problem: eyewitness accounts, to all phenomena – ordinary or extraordinary – are notoriously unreliable. The Rendlesham incident is a great example of this. So, I hope you can see why I need more convincing than dodgy photos, confused testimony, and the assurance of death bed confessions? I’ve been upfront: what is it that convinces you, because clearly you think there is something strange going on?

  11. I’ve seen with my wife very similar object slowly moving above Crewe on 31st dec 2016

  12. Hi Steve,

    Regarding your comment:”(I had a recent discussion with someone who witnessed, in dodgy weather, a V22 Osprey flying above them…..”

    You recount the tale as if you was there!. How could you know what the ‘available light’ was like?. And though the person
    may have never seen one before are you also saying he/she said there was no wash or sound from the twin 38 ft rotors, lets just say….local temperature inversion then shall we?.

    “and this is where we hit a problem: eyewitness accounts, to all phenomena – ordinary or extraordinary – are notoriously unreliable”. So this why we longer have witnesses in trials any
    more, because witnesses can’t be relied upon to speak the truth!.

    It’s not possible to define a ‘dodgy’ UFO photo from a ‘real’
    UFO photo. I often wonder is it the eyes telling the mind ‘that’s
    not real’ or the mind telling the telling the eyes!.

  13. Hello all, David here, the person that posted the original report.
    To answer your question Alan: I drove on and stopped round the corner, past a long line of trees. It was a windy rainy day and the UFO was seen in the only gap in the cloud cover. The gap had closed up by the time I stopped and looked to remain that way. Much to my continual disbelief, I didn’t return to the other witness with the camera (iPad) to get a copy of what he recorded.
    The sighting will stay with me but I’m so sorry I missed the chance to take a photo.

  14. “You recount the tale as if you was there!. How could you know what the ‘available light’ was like?. And though the person
    may have never seen one before are you also saying he/she said there was no wash or sound from the twin 38 ft rotors, lets just say….local temperature inversion then shall we?”

    I was at home, one and half miles away, on the day in question (the day before I spoke to the lad at Coningsby), and it was a horrible morning. I’ve watched them many times, and once again, until they get to a certain distance from you, just as with any aircraft, there is no sound. This is something you seem not to get; an aircraft can be visible from a distance – at nights, with lights, from quite a long distance – well before you hear it. I’ll say it again: try it – stand on the approach to an airport or airfield, and watch the planes from a distance; you will see them long before you hear them. As for an Osprey; at a height, they form a cross in the sky;it’s very odd seeing them for the first time, on approach, especially when there#s two together.

    The point I was making was another that you seem not to get, and it’s one I mentioned with regard to Hynek: what is unidentifiable to you may not be to someone else.

    “So this why we longer have witnesses in trials any
    more, because witnesses can’t be relied upon to speak the truth!.”

    On the contrary, you’ve actually confirmed what I’m saying! The reason witnesses are brought to trial – and you used the plural – is because the testimony of one person is not enough. Many trials see witnesses giving different accounts; you know that as well as I do.

    “It’s not possible to define a ‘dodgy’ UFO photo from a ‘real’
    UFO photo. I often wonder is it the eyes telling the mind ‘that’s
    not real’ or the mind telling the telling the eyes!.”

    Not sure what you mean by this?

  15. Thanks David for a valid answer to a reasonable question. The clouds covered up the ufo. There had to be something. If there was nothing then the ufo is still there being filmed by a man with an iphone.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.