Within New York UFOs
How Strong Is the Cherry Creek UFO Case?
The 1965 Cherry Creek claim is vivid and specific, yet surviving records leave its physical effects difficult to verify.
On this page
- What the Butcher family reported
- Which physical effects were claimed
- Why the case remains unresolved but weakly testable
Page outline Jump by section
Introduction
The Cherry Creek incident of 19 August 1965 is one of New York’s most vivid close-encounter stories, but it is not one of its strongest evidential cases. The Butcher family’s children described a large object descending near their rural farm, accompanied by strange sounds, radio interference, an apparent engine failure and marks or substances later found on the ground. Project Blue Book left the sighting classified as “unidentified”, which helped secure its lasting reputation.[The Black Vault]theblackvault.comThe Black Vault Project Blue Book Unknown Case Files, Complete ListThe Black VaultProject Blue Book Unknown Case Files, Complete List - The Black Vault Case Files…
Yet “unidentified” did not mean that investigators verified an extraordinary craft. The Air Force itself called the sequence of events dubious, laboratory work found nothing unusual in the soil samples, and several of the most dramatic details either appeared late or changed over time. A careful reading suggests that the young witnesses probably saw something unfamiliar, but that the claimed landing traces and mechanical effects cannot now carry much evidential weight.[Center for UFO Studies]cufos.orgCenter for UFO Studies
What the Butcher family reported
The incident took place on a hilltop farm roughly three miles north of Cherry Creek village in Chautauqua County. The Butchers lived there, although later research established that the property belonged to Eunice Miller Carr rather than to the family. Sixteen-year-old Harold Butcher was milking cows in the main barn at about 8.20 pm. The evening was overcast, with low clouds and enough remaining daylight to see the surrounding fields.[Center for UFO Studies]cufos.orgCenter for UFO Studies
According to the reconstruction assembled from early National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, or NICAP, records, Harold first heard a tethered bull making an exceptional screeching noise. Looking outside, he reportedly noticed a bright object near the trees. In its most familiar form, his account described a metallic or grey, football-shaped body, perhaps 50 feet long and 20 feet thick, with vertical seams and reddish material or vapour directed towards the ground. A repeated beeping noise was also reported.[nicap.org]nicap.orgUF O ReportUF O Report
Harold called other young people from the house. The object was said to have hovered on or just above the field before rising rapidly into the low cloud. Some accounts described a loud noise during the ascent and a greenish illumination in the clouds. The family’s adults did not obtain the same detailed view: the case’s most elaborate description came from Harold, while the other principal observers were children or teenagers responding after he had raised the alarm.[Center for UFO Studies]cufos.orgCenter for UFO Studies
A second episode was reported later that evening, at about 9 pm, when several people saw another luminous object or light near the farm. This later display was described less consistently, sometimes as an object with a yellow trail. The existence of more than one reported observation makes the evening harder to dismiss as a single momentary mistake, but it also complicates reconstruction. Different witnesses may have seen different lights under poor viewing conditions rather than one clearly observed vehicle returning to the same place.[nicap.org]nicap.orgUF O ReportUF O Report
Which physical effects were claimed
Cherry Creek gained importance because the story extended beyond a light in the sky. Investigators were told about effects on radios, machinery, animals, vegetation and the ground. Taken together, these claims made the incident resemble what would later be called a close encounter of the second kind: a sighting associated with alleged physical effects.
The reported effects included:
- heavy static on a radio in the barn and another in the farmhouse;
- a tractor engine said to have stopped;
- a bull’s steel tethering bar found bent;
- unusually low milk production that evening;
- an unfamiliar smell around the supposed landing area;
- patches of flattened, discoloured or singed vegetation;
- small marks or cuts in the turf;
- and a purplish or bluish oily liquid found on the ground.[nicap.org]nicap.orgUF O ReportUF O Report
This is an impressive-looking list, but the individual items were not equally well documented. Radio interference is plausible as an observed event, yet no recording or technical measurement survives. The tractor claim is weaker because later review found indications that the engine failure and even an alleged telephone interruption became part of the narrative only as the investigation progressed. The telephone was apparently usable during the original incident, while the tractor’s condition was not established through a contemporary mechanical examination.[Center for UFO Studies]cufos.orgCenter for UFO Studies
The bent bar sounds tangible, but its evidential meaning is unclear. Investigators did not establish how deeply it had been fixed into the soil, what force would have been needed to move it or whether the frightened bull could have bent or loosened it. No injury clearly linking the animal’s struggle to an external aerial object was documented. A later technical review therefore judged the claim unresolved rather than demonstrative of an unusual force.[Center for UFO Studies]cufos.orgCenter for UFO Studies
The reported fall in milk production and the stomach upsets experienced by two children are even less specific. Distressed cattle can produce less milk, and nausea following a frightening event is not evidence of radiation or exposure to an unknown substance. Neither effect was measured against a controlled baseline or supported by medical or veterinary testing. They are part of the witness story, but they cannot identify what caused the disturbance.[nicap.org]nicap.orgUF O ReportUF O Report
Why the ground traces do not prove a landing
The strongest potential evidence should have been the supposed landing area. Investigators reported small depressions or stripped sections of turf, damaged vegetation and a coloured liquid. Samples were collected, giving the case something many UFO reports lack: material that could in principle be examined.
The results did not support an exotic explanation. Geiger-counter checks made by private investigators found normal background radiation around the affected ground, marks and excavated area. Later laboratory analysis found only a slightly higher but statistically insignificant level of radioactivity in two soil samples. Spectrographic testing showed that the samples had ordinary and essentially identical compositions, dominated by aluminium, iron and silicon. Nothing in the analysis was judged unusual.[Center for UFO Studies]cufos.orgCenter for UFO Studies
The purple liquid was especially damaging to the landing interpretation. The Blue Book documentation described it as apparently containing gentian violet and lubricating oil and concluded that it was not connected with the sighting. Later researcher Robert Galganski compared the description with Blu-Kote, a purple livestock antiseptic that was reportedly present on the farm. Its dye could account for the colour, while contamination with ordinary household or farm oil could explain the oily character.[Center for UFO Studies]cufos.orgCenter for UFO Studies
That finding does not prove deliberate deception. The substance could have reached the grass through routine treatment of livestock or contact with farm equipment, and Harold may sincerely have associated an existing patch with the sighting. The important point is narrower: the liquid was not an unknown residue and did not establish that anything had landed.
The turf marks also suffer from poor timing and uncertain provenance. Harold reportedly said that he discovered some tracks on 20 August, yet early investigators searching the pasture had apparently failed to notice them. Some marks were described as small cuts roughly two inches wide and two inches deep, while later retellings expanded them into much deeper holes. Without photographs taken before the site was disturbed, reliable measurements or evidence that the marks were freshly made, their connection to the sighting cannot be demonstrated.[Center for UFO Studies]cufos.orgCenter for UFO Studies
Why Project Blue Book called it unidentified
The Air Force classification is often treated as the case’s strongest endorsement. Project Blue Book’s summary stated that investigators and a state police officer generally did not think the family had fabricated the report. It nevertheless acknowledged that the sequence was dubious and that no convincing physical evidence of a vehicle or landing had been found. The case was carried as unidentified because officials had no definite conventional explanation, not because they had established the presence of an unknown machine.[Center for UFO Studies]cufos.orgCenter for UFO Studies
That distinction matters throughout Project Blue Book’s archive. The programme received 12,618 reports, of which 701 remained unidentified. The Air Force’s final position was that this category contained no demonstrated national-security threat, revolutionary technology or extraterrestrial vehicle. “Unidentified” therefore described the limits of the available information rather than the nature or origin of the reported object.[National Archives]archives.govNational Archives Project BLUE BOOKNational ArchivesProject BLUE BOOK - Unidentified Flying Objects - National ArchivesTextual records of Project BLUE BOOK (the documentati…
Cherry Creek may also have received less rigorous official examination than its later reputation implies. The initial team came from Niagara Falls Air Force Base, but the surviving account suggests that it did not arrive with basic equipment such as a Geiger counter. Much of the detailed fieldwork was performed by private NICAP investigators, whose reports sometimes disagreed over timing, sounds, distances and physical effects. Later commentary even questioned why such a poorly supported case passed so quickly into Blue Book’s unidentified category.[Center for UFO Studies]cufos.orgCenter for UFO Studies
There have also been suggestions of radar confirmation, but the surviving case documentation does not provide a radar plot, operator testimony or a track that can be matched securely to the farm sighting. A private investigator asked the Air Force about possible radar traces and received no useful answer. That silence is not positive radar evidence. Without the underlying data, the radar claim remains an unverified addition rather than independent confirmation.[Center for UFO Studies]cufos.orgCenter for UFO Studies
How later testimony weakened the story
Later investigation did not stabilise the original account. When Galganski interviewed Harold in 1996, 31 years after the incident, Harold confidently recalled structural details that did not appear in the early NICAP reports, Blue Book summary or newspaper cuttings. These included tripod legs, holes several feet deep and an alleged government calculation that the object weighed 100 tons.[Center for UFO Studies]cufos.orgCenter for UFO Studies
Such additions are difficult to reconcile with the field investigation. Several investigators examined the pasture, and none recorded tripod impressions or deep holes. Harold also gave different depths within the same later conversation. Galganski contrasted his confidence in 1996 with a less convincing performance recorded during a NICAP meeting only weeks after the sighting.[Center for UFO Studies]cufos.orgCenter for UFO Studies
This does not show that Harold invented the original event. Human memory is reconstructive: repeated storytelling, questions from investigators, press coverage and later UFO culture can all change how a witness remembers an experience. But the changing account makes it unsafe to treat the mature, highly detailed version as though every feature had been recorded on the night.
The same problem affects the case more broadly. The loud ascent noise was reportedly heard only by Harold, although people in the nearby house should have been able to hear a genuinely explosive boom. Other witnesses who came outside did not consistently report the green clouds that were later presented as a striking part of the event. Details varied across three separate NICAP reports, suggesting that investigators were never working from one fixed and internally consistent narrative.[Center for UFO Studies]cufos.orgCenter for UFO Studies
Unresolved, but weakly testable
The fairest assessment is that Cherry Creek is neither securely debunked nor strong evidence of an extraordinary craft. Several young witnesses were visibly excited, the family promptly involved police and investigators, and there was no obvious financial or social advantage in creating the story. It is reasonable to think that Harold and the others saw an unusual light or aerial display that they could not identify. J. Allen Hynek, Blue Book’s scientific consultant, also believed that the family’s circumstances argued against a simple planned hoax.[Center for UFO Studies]cufos.orgCenter for UFO Studies
What cannot be sustained is the claim that the surviving evidence demonstrates a large structured object landing on the farm. No photograph shows the object. No radar record securely confirms it. No instrument measured its distance, size, speed or effects. The soil and vegetation tests produced ordinary results, the purple substance had a plausible farm-related composition, and important claims about engines, telephones, holes and landing gear either lacked contemporary verification or grew more dramatic with retelling.[Center for UFO Studies]cufos.orgCenter for UFO Studies
For New York’s UFO history, Cherry Creek is therefore most valuable as a lesson in evidence rather than as a solved mystery. It shows how a sincere and memorable sighting can accumulate mutually reinforcing details—frightened animals, failed machinery, scorched grass and mysterious liquid—without producing one reliable, independently measured trace. The incident remains unidentified in the limited sense that the original visual stimulus was never established. Its supposed physical proof, however, is substantially weaker than the enduring story suggests.
Amazon book picks
Further Reading
Books and field guides related to How Strong Is the Cherry Creek UFO Case?. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.
The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects
Background on official investigative practice.
UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Re...
Examines serious UFO investigations.
eBay marketplace picks
Marketplace Samples
Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.
Selected fromUFO wall art oneBay.co.uk.
Current eBay listing
UFO ABDUCTION OVER THE OCEAN -DEEP FRAMED CANVAS WALL ART PRINT
Current eBay listing
UFO ABDUCTION OVER THE OCEAN -FRAMED WALL ART PAPER PRINT POSTER
Endnotes
1.
Source: archives.gov
Title: National Archives Project BLUE BOOK
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/military/air-force/ufos
Source snippet
National ArchivesProject BLUE BOOK - Unidentified Flying Objects - National ArchivesTextual records of Project BLUE BOOK (the documentati...
2.
Source: cufos.org
Title: Center for UFO Studies
Link:https://cufos.org/PDFs/cases/1965_08_19_US_NY_Cherry-Creek_CUFOS-IUR_Butcher_CE-II.pdf
3.
Source: nicap.org
Title: UF O Report
Link:https://www.nicap.org/650819cherrycreek2_dir.htm
4.
Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/topics/uaps/presidential-libraries
5.
Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/topics/uaps/moving-images-and-sound
6.
Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/topics/uaps/textual-and-microfilm
7.
Source: prologue.blogs.archives.gov
Title: ufos man made made up and unknown
Link:https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2018/04/23/ufos-man-made-made-up-and-unknown/
8.
Source: prologue.blogs.archives.gov
Title: ufos natural explanations
Link:https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2018/04/16/ufos-natural-explanations/
9.
Source: unwritten-record.blogs.archives.gov
Title: aliens at the archives
Link:https://unwritten-record.blogs.archives.gov/2017/04/26/aliens-at-the-archives/
10.
Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/files/research/cartographic/pi-195-soil-conservation-service.pdf
11.
Source: clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov
Title: PIR appendixes
Link:https://clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov/media/pdf/PIR_appendixes.pdf
12.
Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/files/atlanta/finding-aids/rg142-tennessee-valley-authority-890185.pdf
13.
Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/kansas-city/finding-aids/omaha-naturalization.html
14.
Source: clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov
Link:https://clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov/media/pdf/PIR.pdf
15.
Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/alic/periodicals/nara-citations/old-army.html
16.
Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/alic/periodicals/nara-citations/modern-army.html
17.
Source: obamawhitehouse.archives.gov
Title: fair2006 omb.xls
Link:https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/procurement/fair/fair2006_omb.xls
18.
Source: archives.gov
Title: [XLS] Sheet1
Link:https://www.archives.gov/files/finding-aids/rg-21-district-courts-2715069.xls
19.
Source: trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov
Title: pacei voterfraudcases
Link:https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/pacei-voterfraudcases.pdf
20.
Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/catalog/catalog-bulk-downloads/uap-bulk-download
21.
Source: archives.gov
Title: rg collections
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/topics/uaps/rg-collections
22.
Source: prologue.blogs.archives.gov
Link:https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2018/03/report.pdf
23.
Source: archive.org
Link:https://archive.org/stream/catalogofcopyrig31311libr/catalogofcopyrig31311libr_djvu.txt
24.
Source: nicap.org
Link:https://www.nicap.org/chronos/1965fullrep.htm
25.
Source: theblackvault.com
Title: The Black Vault Project Blue Book Unknown Case Files, Complete List
Link:https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/project-blue-book-unknown-case-files-complete-list/
Source snippet
The Black VaultProject Blue Book Unknown Case Files, Complete List - The Black Vault Case Files...
26.
Source: documents.theblackvault.com
Title: OSDJS FY2014 2015
Link:https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/foia/OSDJS-FY2014-2015.pdf
27.
Source: documents.theblackvault.com
Title: uscg 2011 2013
Link:https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/foia/uscg-2011-2013.pdf
28.
Source: documents.theblackvault.com
Title: FOIALog FY05
Link:https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/foia/FOIALog_FY05.pdf
29.
Source: documents.theblackvault.com
Title: A703 580 1 1 Part 17 646573
Link:https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/australia/A703_580-1-1_Part%2017_646573.pdf
30.
Source: documents.theblackvault.com
Title: pbbcases 1959 1965
Link:https://documents.theblackvault.com/bluebookdesk/pbbcases-1959-1965.pdf
31.
Source: theblackvault.com
Link:https://www.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/bluebook/bluebook.pdf
32.
Source: documents.theblackvault.com
Title: A703 580 1 1 Part 7 646548
Link:https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/australia/A703_580-1-1_Part%207_646548.pdf
33.
Source: documents.theblackvault.com
Title: pbb univcol
Link:https://documents.theblackvault.com/bluebookdesk/pbb-univcol.pdf
34.
Source: documents.theblackvault.com
Title: Canada FOIA Part 26 Pages 7501 7800
Link:https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/canada/Canada%20-%20FOIA%20Part%2026%20-%20Pages%207501-7800.pdf
35.
Source: govinfo.gov
Link:https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1965-pt5/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1965-pt5-9-2.pdf
36.
Source: govinfo.gov
Link:https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1965-pt8/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1965-pt8-2-2.pdf
37.
Source: Wikipedia
Title: Project Blue Book
Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Book
38.
Source: cufos.org
Link:https://cufos.org/PDFs/UFOI_and_Selected_Documents/cases/1965_08_19_US_NY_Cherry-Creek_GALGANSKI_Butcher-CE-II.pdf
39.
Source: cufos.org
Link:https://cufos.org/types-of-ufos/close-encounters-of-the-second-kind/
Additional References
40.
Source: af.mil
Link:https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104590/unidentified-flying-objects-and-air-force-project-blue-book/
Source snippet
Air ForceUnidentified Flying Objects and Air Force Project Blue BookOf a total of 12,618 sightings reported to Project Blue Book, 701 rem...
41.
Source: facebook.com
Title: in 1897 alexander hamilton reported that a ufo abducted a cow from his farm ufof
Link:https://www.facebook.com/TheUnXplainedZone/posts/in-1897-alexander-hamilton-reported-that-a-ufo-abducted-a-cow-from-his-farm-ufof/1323248400004589/
Source snippet
8:20–9:00 p.m. Harold Butcher, 16, is milking the cows in his father's barn in Cherry Creek, New York, and listening to...
42.
Source: post-journal.com
Title: strange lights over chautauqua county
Link:https://www.post-journal.com/life/viewpoints/2017/12/strange-lights-over-chautauqua-county/
Source snippet
News, Sports, JobsProbably the most famous story in the county came out of Cherry Creek in 1965.... August 19, 1965, when, as he told in...
Published: August 19, 1965
43.
Source: youtube.com
Link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzYUT2N2sF4
Source snippet
Talk Is Jericho: Alien Sightings, Abductions, and the Big Foot Connection...
44.
Source: youtube.com
Link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT9SQqXu7tQ
Source snippet
David Icke talks conspiracy theories - BBC News BBC News · 2M views...
45.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Talk Is Jericho: Alien Sightings, Abductions, and the Big Foot Connection
Link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9C-5j-nxp0
Source snippet
Episode 90- Rob Kristoffersen of Our Strange Skies...
46.
Source: youtube.com
Title: A Strange Experience Left Jacques Vallee Completely Shaken
Link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeg3doJxJiw
Source snippet
The Big UFO Stories of 2022, and Looking Ahead at 2023 With RYAN SPRAGUE...
47.
Source: govinfo.gov
Link:https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-89hhrg50066O/pdf/CHRG-89hhrg50066O.pdf
48.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Episode 90- Rob Kristoffersen of Our Strange Skies
Link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsEv49laXrc
Source snippet
A Strange Experience Left Jacques Vallee Completely Shaken...
49.
Source: facebook.com
Link:https://www.facebook.com/news4buffalo/videos/cherry-creek-sightings/10153523094965505/