Accounts from different parts of the school day
The early material describes a sequence of reports, with different pupils seeing different aspects. The British UFO Research Association (BUFORA) summarised up to fourteen children's accounts in its journal: a silvery metallic object on the ground within a quarter-mile of the school between 13:00 and 15:45. Some described a cigar form partly behind bushes, initially seeming stuck before movement behind them. Several reported a silver-suited figure. The publication expressly anticipated a fuller report and acknowledged the limitations of its summary. BUFORA Journal, vol. 6 no. 1, May/June 1977, pp. 11 and 13
The longer Flying Saucer Review (FSR) treatment prints six named accounts. Philip James Rees, aged ten, is recorded describing an object at approximately 13:30, still present when he returned inside at 14:00. He said some friends saw a figure, whereas he did not. Tudor Owen Lloyd Jones's account concerns a lunchtime object behind a bush and a reported man. Eleven-year-old Michael Mathieson Webb described a silver cigar shape, dome and flashing red light. These descriptions preserve both a shared outline and differences in what the pupils reported perceiving. FSR, p. 5
David John Davies's entry explicitly concerns only the second sighting. It places him near the top of the playing field at about 15:35, after school, with Rees nearby. He described a cigar-shaped form appearing from a bush, shining and humming, with a tugging motion before the children ran. David R. George, aged nine, reported both an appearance after 13:00 and another around 15:35–15:40. His account includes a figure whose facial features he had not seen apart from reported long ears. A single continuous observation by the whole group cannot represent these separate entries. FSR, p. 5
Nine-year-old Jeremy Passmore's descriptions show why source-specific durations matter. The BUFORA summary attributes an episode lasting up to twenty minutes to him. FSR prints a written description of a dinner-time observation and reports his answer to specific questions as not less than five minutes. Its reported object distance is about 300 yards, while the figure is placed at about 350 yards in those answers. These are unaided estimates, and the different statements require comparison with their original questions. They cannot be compressed into a precisely timed single appearance. BUFORA, p. 13, FSR, p. 5
Pugh's enquiries and the physical site
Pugh's involvement began with a telephone call at 16:50 on 4 February. Mrs Davies told him that her ten-year-old son and approximately fourteen other children had seen an object near the school. Pugh, a retired veterinary surgeon and local BUFORA coordinator, says he interviewed Davies at home and accompanied him towards the site at about 18:00. Heavy rain, dusk, a fence and a swiftly flowing stream impeded further progress. He recorded Davies's indicated position by reference to trees and telegraph poles. FSR, p. 3
He returned on Saturday with Davies and Hugh Turnbull, a Western Telegraph reporter. Their search found no imprints or tread marks. Pugh considered whether the heavy rain had removed traces, although he judged that improbable. This records an investigator's search and interpretation; no independent site log, measured trace or physical specimen accompanies the article. The missing trace constrains a claimed landing without determining what the children saw.
Pugh's map places the observation across a fence and stream, through trees towards rising ground, with sewage works farther along. His prose emphasises a narrow gap between nearby trees and a muddy slope. These details make viewing geometry relevant to identification. The schematic plan has no surveyed sightline or complete instrumented site reconstruction, so it remains an orienting representation of his investigation. FSR, p. 4
How the accounts and drawings were recorded
The FSR cover note identifies a Pugh-arranged collection of standard BUFORA questionnaire forms and drawings. Its six numbered illustrations correspond to Webb, Jones, Passmore, Davies, Rees and George. The article prints selected answers; it supplies neither the complete forms nor their completion dates. These published representations should retain their questionnaire provenance rather than automatically become the school's initial written account set. FSR, cover and p. 4
Pugh says headteacher Ralph Llewellyn separated the children immediately after hearing their descriptions and asked them to record impressions. He treats drawings made immediately after the event as persuasive and expresses confidence that there was no collusion. That confidence is his investigative judgement. The report includes no dated interview log establishing which pupils spoke together beforehand or how the questionnaire exercise related to the headteacher's work. FSR, pp. 3–4
David Clarke's 2017 archival essay reports a school diary dating separate interviews and examination of drawings and notes to Monday, 7 February. The intervening weekend permits discussion before the exercise, even if pupils were separated while recording. The original diary remains uninspected here, so this chronology retains Clarke's attribution. Clarke, 13 September 2017
The drawings themselves also need more careful comparison than a claim that they are identical. The FSR cover includes different forms, locations and a figure; BUFORA's p. 14 labels its Broad Haven figures as impressions, alongside images from other cases. Editorial selection and possible reproduction affect the set available to readers. Similarity may reflect a shared appearance, common discussion or familiar imagery; the recording conditions determine how much evidential weight it can carry. FSR, cover, BUFORA, p. 14
Later school reports and proposed familiar explanations
Adult accounts printed by Pugh concern a later date. An anonymous teacher reported a shining oval, slightly domed object on 17 February at about 10:30, in pouring rain. She described ridges, a humming sound and movement to the left. Two other school workers reported an object an hour or so later and initially considered it a sewage lorry. They told the headteacher they believed they had solved the mystery. Pugh says they subsequently inspected the site with their husbands and found no tyre marks. These adults supply later reports, rather than independent witnessing of the children's 4 February appearance. FSR, p. 4
Pugh says he was informed that no council lorry or sludge-removal workers had been in the field. He also rejects a television suggestion involving the rotating arm of a sewage macerator, arguing that it was below eye level from the observation point. His account provides a testable dispute about equipment and sightlines. The council's operational records, machine dimensions and an independent geometric reconstruction remain absent. The proposed explanations should therefore be assessed against the site evidence rather than accepted or dismissed on the investigator's authority alone.
The school reports also entered a wider regional story. FSR's separate ‘West Wales Round-up’ begins on the same page as the questionnaire excerpts; BUFORA includes other school sightings and an earlier road report under ‘Again Broad Haven’. Their proximity in a publication cannot make the witnesses, dates or causes interchangeable. The school case requires its own reporting sequence before comparison with the Pembrokeshire wave.
Chronology
| Date | Record | Evidential significance |
|---|---|---|
| 4 February 1977, lunchtime and afternoon | Children's reported appearances | Individual entries distinguish times and participation |
| 4 February, 16:50 | Pugh's stated first telephone contact | Parent-mediated report initiates his investigation |
| 4 February, about 18:00 | Pugh and Davies approach site | Rain, dusk and access barriers limit inspection |
| 5 February | Pugh's reported return with Davies and Turnbull | No imprints or tread marks found |
| 7 February | Drawing/interview exercise in Clarke's diary-based account | Later attributed chronology differs from immediate-recording claim |
| 17 February, about 10:30 and later | Teacher and workers' reports | Separate-date adult accounts include a sewage-lorry interpretation |
| March 1977 footer | Privately reproduced typed summary page | Named drawings and extracts; parent issue unresolved |
| May/June 1977 | BUFORA Journal publishes school summary | Up to fourteen children and source-specific duration |
| June 1977 | FSR vol. 23 no. 1 published | Complete Pugh report and six selected questionnaire entries |
| 2017 | Clarke publishes school-record discussion | Retrospective archival account of recording conditions |
Evidence assessment
Contemporary publications establish that a group report was investigated and that named pupils supplied differing accounts. Those differences are analytically useful: they identify who reported an occupant, which pupils describe a later episode and how time estimates vary. The repeated general outline merits examination alongside that variation.
Agreement between the articles is not fully independent corroboration. Pugh supplied the investigation behind both periodicals, and the published excerpts passed through editorial selection. Assessment therefore depends on the original accounts' sequence and questions, together with the possibility of a familiar form seen through partial concealment. The public record considered here preserves a historical reporting episode without resolving its physical cause.
Familiar object or equipment seen through trees
The workers' sewage-lorry interpretation and the macerator suggestion offer specific candidates. Their relevance to 4 February requires operational dates and a sightline matching the children's positions. Equipment plausibility at the location alone cannot identify a particular reported appearance.
Shared observation affected by discussion
Children may have seen something unfamiliar and subsequently discussed it. This permits sincere testimony alongside increasingly shared detail. The timing of each original account would help distinguish initial perceptions from later narrative agreement.
Deliberate invention or prank
An organised story or staged appearance is an investigable possibility. Pugh rejected collusion, but the inspected records do not verify every interaction or identify a perpetrator. Later regional prank claims require evidence linking them to this specific school episode.
An unidentified external appearance
A shared external stimulus remains possible. Its classification requires better evidence of size, distance and motion than the published estimates provide. Leaving the appearance unidentified does not establish an unfamiliar technology or the identity of a reported figure.
Assessment snapshot
| Evidence area | Assessment | Principal limit |
|---|---|---|
| Children's accounts | Named contemporary printed excerpts survive | Complete forms, questions and dates unrecovered |
| Group agreement | Broad similarities and meaningful differences | Shared investigator and possible prior discussion |
| Drawings | Labelled contemporary reproductions | Selection, original sheets and recording sequence unresolved |
| Site enquiry | Pugh describes search and geometry | No independently recovered survey or physical trace |
| Adult reports | Later-date accounts printed | Do not witness the 4 February event |
| Official record | Relevant archival series identified | Case-specific papers uninspected |
Claim ledger
| Claim | Source and locator | Assessment | Remaining limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fifteen pupils witnessed one continuous episode | BUFORA p. 13; FSR pp. 3 and 5 | Counts and individual time windows differ | Original complete account set needed |
| All six named boys saw a figure | FSR p. 5 | Rees expressly says he did not | Other reported figure accounts have varying detail |
| Davies joined the lunchtime observation | FSR p. 5 | Entry explicitly concerns second sighting only | Initial notes and questions unrecovered |
| The drawings establish no collusion | FSR pp. 3–4; Clarke 2017 | Investigator judgement; conflicting recording chronology | No complete interaction/interview log |
| Adult staff confirmed the same event | FSR p. 4 | Accounts dated 17 February | Separate episodes and viewing conditions |
| No sewage equipment could explain the appearance | FSR p. 4 | Pugh rejects candidates | Survey and operational records missing |
| FSR's report was published January–February 1977 | FSR masthead/contents page | Explicitly published June 1977 | Exact day unspecified |
| The government archival series establishes an official identification | National Archives guide p. 10 | Finding aid supplies series context | Case documents and conclusions uninspected |
Open questions
Which accounts were recorded before discussion?
Dated sheets, interview notes and the school diary would establish the reporting sequence and distinguish the headteacher's exercise from Pugh's questionnaires.
What was visible from each position?
The pupils' locations and contemporary site photographs would allow the reported outline to be compared with vegetation and equipment. Later changes to the site must be identified before reconstructing 1977 sightlines.
Further research
Witness record
Webb, Jones, Passmore, Davies, Rees and George supply the six selected questionnaire accounts. Their reported participation differs across the day. Pugh interviews and interprets; Turnbull accompanies the reported site search; Llewellyn organises a recording exercise whose timing requires comparison. The anonymous teacher and two workers supply later accounts. Tim Webb's acceptance of his son's testimony is a parent's judgement, rather than an additional observation. FSR, pp. 3–5
Source library
Contemporary investigation and printed testimony
- Flying Saucer Review vol. 23 no. 1, published June 1977, cover and pp. 3–5. Complete relevant report and masthead inspected in private-host facsimile; printed questionnaire extracts and drawings, with original forms unrecovered.
- BUFORA Journal vol. 6 no. 1, May/June 1977, pp. 11–14. Complete school passage, site plan and relevant labelled figures inspected; investigator summary within a multi-case feature.
Contemporary reproduction with incomplete provenance
- Typed March 1977 page, p. 17, reproduced by SUFON. Whole page inspected; named drawing reproductions and written extracts. Parent periodical and preceding page unidentified; retained as a source lead.
Archival finding aid and later source criticism
- National Archives briefing guide, 12 July 2012, p. 10. Relevant original institutional finding-aid page inspected; case-specific MOD contents unrecovered.
- David Clarke, 13 September 2017. Authored archival discussion read; original school diary not independently inspected.