YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → A Kansas Farmer Watched a Gray Walk Through His Field in 1967 — His Testimony Was Seized Immediately

A Kansas Farmer Watched a Gray Walk Through His Field in 1967 — His Testimony Was Seized Immediately — Transcript

by The Fourth Encounter · 3,737 words · 689 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00In the summer of 1967, a wheat farmer
0:03outside Coldwater, Kansas, reported
0:05watching a humanoid extraterrestrial
0:07being walk slowly through his field at
0:104:47 in the morning.
0:13He described it in precise detail.
0:15He filed a formal account.
0:18And within 72 hours, two men arrived at
0:20his property, took every piece of
0:22documentation he had produced, and told
0:24him calmly, without threat, without
0:27explanation, that he had not seen what
0:30he saw.
0:31The farmer, Eldon Pritchard, never spoke
0:34publicly again. Not once. Not ever.
0:39That single fact is where this story
0:41begins. Let me tell you exactly what
0:43Eldon Pritchard said he saw, not what
0:45was reported second-hand, not what was
0:47summarized in the brief clinical
0:49paragraph that appears in a 1971
0:52regional UFO research compilation out of
0:55Wichita, a document I found, by the way,
0:58in a box labeled miscellaneous
1:00agricultural correspondence at the
1:03Comanche County Historical Society,
1:06which is either an extraordinary
1:07coincidence or something else entirely.
1:10I mean, what Pritchard himself described
1:12in the original handwritten account that
1:14a neighbor, a retired school teacher
1:16named Arvella Johanson, managed to
1:18transcribe before the men came.
1:22Johanson's transcription, or should my
1:24key, three pages handwritten in blue
1:27ballpoint on yellow legal paper, is the
1:29closest thing we have to a primary
1:31source. She gave a copy to her daughter
1:34in 1989.
1:36The daughter gave it to a researcher in
1:372004.
1:39That researcher, a man named Dale
1:41Hefner, who ran a small independent
1:43investigation outfit out of Topeka,
1:46passed it to a colleague before dying of
1:48a heart attack in 2009.
1:51The colleague, who asked to remain
1:53unnamed, passed it to me. Three pages.
1:57That's what survived. And here's what
1:58those three pages say.
2:01Eldon Pritchard woke at 4:30 a.m. on the
2:03morning of July 14th, 1967,
2:07as he typically did. He dressed. He went
2:10to his kitchen.
2:11He poured coffee. He walked out onto his
2:13back porch, something he did every
2:15morning, he had told Johansen,
2:17because he liked to watch the sky before
2:19the work started.
2:211,300 acres of wheat,
2:23flat land, big sky.
2:26You could see a long way in any
2:28direction. What he saw standing at the
2:30tree line at the far eastern edge of his
2:32property,
2:33roughly 400 yards out, was a figure.
2:36He described it as standing still,
2:39completely still.
2:41He said, and this is the phrase that
2:43keeps me coming back to Johansen's
2:45transcription,
2:46that it stood with a stillness that
2:48didn't feel like resting,
2:50as though stillness were its natural
2:52state, as though motion would have been
2:54the aberration.
2:56He watched it for several minutes before
2:58it moved. When it did move, it walked,
3:01slowly, deliberately,
3:04into the field.
3:06Pritchard said he didn't feel fear
3:08immediately.
3:09He said his first thought was that
3:11someone had come onto his property,
3:13a trespasser, a young person maybe from
3:16town.
3:17He reached back inside the door for the
3:19flashlight he kept on a hook beside the
3:22frame.
3:23He stepped off the porch. He walked
3:25maybe 50 yards toward the figure before
3:27he stopped,
3:29because by then he could see it more
3:30clearly.
3:32The sky was beginning to lighten in the
3:34east, that particular shade of dark
3:36blue-gray that precedes dawn,
3:39and there was enough ambient light that
3:41shapes were becoming distinguishable.
3:44And what Pritchard saw was not a person,
3:47not a man,
3:48not a woman,
3:49not a child,
3:51not anything he had a word for, he told
3:54Johanson,
3:55though he reached for words anyway.
3:57He described the figure as approximately
3:595 ft tall,
4:01thin, thin like something that had never
4:04needed to be otherwise, which is a
4:06strange and specific phrase for a wheat
4:08farmer to use, and it has stayed with
4:10me.
4:12The head was disproportionately large,
4:14the limbs were elongated, the skin, and
4:18he could see skin because the figure
4:20appeared to be wearing nothing or
4:21nothing recognizable as clothing,
4:24was a pale gray, almost luminescent in
4:27the pre-dawn light.
4:29He could not clearly see facial features
4:31from his distance, but he described the
4:33impression of large, dark eyes.
4:36Eyes that seemed, he said, to occupy too
4:38much of the face.
4:41The being walked through his wheat field
4:43at a measured, unhurried pace. It did
4:46not appear to notice him, or if it did,
4:49it gave no indication.
4:51It moved in a roughly straight line
4:53southwest to northeast, crossing
4:56approximately 200 yd of field before
4:58stopping again near the irrigation ditch
5:00that ran along his northern property
5:02line.
5:03Then it stood still again.
5:06That stillness, he came back to it
5:08repeatedly in Johanson's transcription.
5:11That particular quality of stillness.
5:14Pritchard stood in his field watching.
5:17He did not advance further.
5:19He did not retreat. He described
5:21feeling,
5:22and this is the part that the 1971
5:25Wichita compilation actually does
5:28reference in that brief clinical
5:30paragraph, a sensation of pressure
5:32behind his eyes.
5:34Not pain,
5:35pressure.
5:37Like the feeling before a thunderstorm,
5:39he said, but located specifically behind
5:42his eyes and at the base of his skull.
5:45He stood there for what he estimated to
5:47be 12 minutes, then the figure was gone.
5:50Not gone as in walked away.
5:53Not gone as in disappeared into the
5:54ditch or over the property line.
5:57"Gone," he said, "as in simply no longer
6:01present."
6:02One moment it was there,
6:04the next, it was not.
6:07No sound, no light,
6:09no motion he could perceive.
6:12Gone.
6:13What Pritchard did next is, I think, the
6:15most important part of this story. Not
6:18because of what it reveals about
6:19extraterrestrials, but because of what
6:21it reveals
6:22about the system that responded to him.
6:26He went inside. He sat at his kitchen
6:28table,
6:29and he wrote down everything he had seen
6:31in the order he had seen it, with times
6:34and distances estimated as carefully as
6:37he could manage.
6:40He was, by all accounts from those who
6:41knew him, a precise man.
6:44A man who kept meticulous records of
6:46planting schedules, rainfall, yield per
6:49acre going back to 1951.
6:52A man who understood the value of
6:53documentation.
6:55He wrote four pages. He dated them July
6:5814th, 1967.
7:00He signed them, then he called the
7:02Comanche County Sheriff's Department.
7:05A deputy named Roy Tysma took his call,
7:07and according to Johanssen's account,
7:10drove out to the property that same
7:11morning.
7:13Tysma walked the field with Pritchard.
7:16What they found, and this is documented
7:18in a brief incident report that exists,
7:21or existed, in the Coldwater municipal
7:24records before those records were
7:26transferred to a regional archive in
7:271984 and apparently misfiled,
7:31were marks in the wheat. Not crop
7:33circles, nothing so dramatic,
7:35but a section of wheat, roughly 8 ft in
7:38diameter, that had been pressed flat,
7:40not broken, not burned, pressed, as
7:44though something heavy had rested there
7:46or descended there in a concentrated
7:48circular area.
7:50And leading away from that pressed
7:51section, marks in the soft soil at the
7:54field's edge that Tessmer apparently
7:57described in his incident report as
8:00consistent with bipedal movement, but of
8:02unusual depth to width ratio.
8:06Unusual depth to width ratio.
8:09A phrase that means something very
8:10specific to anyone who has spent time
8:13looking at ground impressions.
8:15It means the tracks were deep relative
8:17to how narrow they were.
8:19It means whatever made them was heavy.
8:22Very heavy.
8:24Disproportionately heavy.
8:27For a figure Pritchard estimated at 5 ft
8:29tall,
8:30that incident report,
8:33I have tried methodically and over many
8:35months to locate it.
8:37The Coldwater Municipal Archive transfer
8:39records from 1984
8:41list it as having been included in a box
8:44labeled Sheriff Miscellaneous 1965 to
8:471969.
8:50That box, according to the regional
8:52archive in Pratt, Kansas, was received.
8:55According to their catalog, it was
8:57shelved. According to their shelving
8:59records, it remains there.
9:01According to the actual physical shelf
9:03where it should be, it is not there. The
9:06box is missing. The report is missing.
9:09And that's where the official
9:10explanation first begins to break down.
9:13The men arrived on July the 16th, 1967.
9:17Two of them.
9:19Pritchard described them to Johansen as
9:21wearing dark suits and arriving in a
9:23black vehicle.
9:24A description so archetypal that I want
9:27to pause here and address it directly,
9:29because I know what you're thinking.
9:32I thought the same thing. I thought, of
9:34course he did. Of course the farmer in
9:361967 described men in black suits. It's
9:40the template. It's the cliché.
9:43Except Hawn Johanson's transcription
9:45predates the popularization of that
9:47template by over a decade.
9:50The cultural vocabulary around suited
9:52government visitors in UFO cases didn't
9:55become widely circulated in American
9:57popular consciousness until the late
10:001970s.
10:01Consolidated further through the 1980s.
10:05Pritchard's account as transcribed by
10:07Johanson in 1967
10:10and copied in 1989 before that
10:12popularization had fully saturated rural
10:15Kansas
10:16uses the description without apparent
10:18awareness of its significance.
10:21He doesn't call them men in black. He
10:23doesn't reference any framework. He just
10:25says two men, dark suits, black car. He
10:30says they were polite, quiet. They asked
10:33him questions, many questions, detailed
10:35questions about the time, the duration,
10:38the physical description of the figure,
10:40the marks in the field, and they took
10:42notes. They asked to see his written
10:44account. He gave it to them. They asked
10:47if he had discussed the encounter with
10:49anyone.
10:50He mentioned Deputy Tesmer and Marcella
10:52Johanson. They thanked him.
10:55Before leaving, one of them paid.
10:58Pritchard could not later recall which
10:59one paid, told him that what he had
11:02observed was almost certainly a weather
11:04phenomenon, possibly a temperature
11:06inversion combined with an unusual
11:09atmospheric reflection,
11:11and that the marks in the field were
11:12consistent with a localized wind event.
11:15They said a report would be filed. They
11:17said he might be contacted for
11:19follow-up. He was never contacted again.
11:23Johanson reported that 2 days later a
11:25man she did not recognize knocked on her
11:27door and asked to speak with her about a
11:29conversation she'd had with her
11:31neighbor. She said he was polite. She
11:34said he was alone, not in a suit but in
11:36ordinary clothes.
11:38She said he asked whether she had any
11:40written notes from her conversation with
11:42Pritchard.
11:43She told him she did not. She had
11:45already sent her copy to her daughter.
11:48This is an astonishing detail if you sit
11:50with it.
11:51Johansson lied. A retired school teacher
11:54in rural Kansas in 1967
11:57looked at a stranger on her doorstep and
11:59lied about a document because something
12:01in her told her the document mattered.
12:04Something told her to protect it.
12:07She couldn't have explained why, she
12:09told her daughter years later. She just
12:11knew. And because she lied, we have
12:13three pages of testimony. That's it.
12:16Three pages.
12:18But three pages is infinitely more than
12:20zero, and zero is what someone
12:22apparently wanted us to have.
12:26The further I went into this, the more a
12:27shape began to emerge. And once I saw
12:30it, I couldn't look away from it.
12:33Eldon Pritchard is not unique. Not in
12:35the specifics of his encounter.
12:38A slow-moving gray figure, unusual
12:40stillness, the pressure sensation, rapid
12:43official response, and not in what
12:45happened afterward.
12:46The confiscation of documentation, the
12:49visit, the silence that followed.
12:52In March of 1964, a ranch hand named
12:55Clifford Bowman outside Liberal, Kansas,
12:58reported a similar encounter to a local
13:01newspaper.
13:02The story ran in the Seward County
13:04Sentinel on March 12th.
13:06Within a week, according to the
13:08Sentinel's editor at the time,
13:10a man named Paul Whitmore, who gave an
13:12interview to a regional paranormal
13:14newsletter in 1988,
13:16two individuals visited the newspaper
13:18office and asked to review all
13:20correspondence related to the Bowman
13:22story.
13:24Whitmore said he found this unusual but
13:26compliant. He let them look. He said
13:29they left without taking anything.
13:31But he also noted that the original
13:33Beaumont letter, the handwritten letter
13:35that had prompted the story,
13:37was gone from his files afterward.
13:40He had assumed it was misfiled.
13:42By 1988, he no longer thought it was
13:45misfiled.
13:47In August of 1969, 26 months after
13:50Pritchard's encounter,
13:52a woman named Dorothea Skull outside
13:54Ashland, Kansas called the Barber County
13:56Sheriff
13:57to report a humanoid figure standing in
13:59her garden.
14:01She described it as gray, thin, and
14:03unnaturally still.
14:06The deputy who responded, a man named
14:08Curtis Prowl, filed a report that
14:10exists. I have seen a photograph of it
14:13provided by Prowl's son, describing the
14:15scene as consistent with a possible
14:17trespassing incident. No evidence of
14:20criminal intent. Subject described as
14:22unknown individual of unusual
14:24appearance.
14:25Prowl recommended no further action.
14:28The report exists. It is real.
14:31But Dorothea Skull's own written account
14:33of the encounter, which her son told me
14:35she spent an entire afternoon writing on
14:37the day it happened,
14:39was never found among her papers after
14:41she died in 1991.
14:43Liberal, Kansas. Coldwater, Kansas.
14:46Ashland, Kansas.
14:48A corridor of cases
14:50running southwest to northeast across
14:52the state.
14:53All within a 5-year window. All
14:55involving figures matching a near
14:57identical description.
14:59All resulting in missing or confiscated
15:01documentation.
15:03The pattern repeats with an unsettling
15:05precision that is difficult to attribute
15:08to coincidence.
15:10What are the odds that three separate
15:11individuals in three separate counties
15:14across 5 years would independently
15:17arrive at the same description of the
15:19same type of figure?
15:22What are the odds that documentation
15:23would go missing in each case through
15:25what appears in isolation to be
15:28perfectly mundane clerical misfortune?
15:31The odds collapse when you look at them
15:33together.
15:34They simply collapse.
15:37I want to return to the description
15:38itself because it matters in ways that I
15:40think are under appreciated.
15:43The figure Pritchard described, gray,
15:45thin, disproportionate head, large dark
15:48eyes, elongated limbs, roughly 5 ft
15:51tall, matches what researchers call the
15:54classic gray morphology.
15:56Most people today know the gray
15:58extraterrestrial as a cultural image,
16:00something from movies and television and
16:02Halloween costumes.
16:04It has been so thoroughly absorbed into
16:07popular iconography that it is almost
16:09impossible to take seriously.
16:12But here is the critical question.
16:15Where did that image come from?
16:18The dominant popular image of the gray
16:20alien
16:21as it exists today traces largely to
16:23abduction cases from the late 1970s
16:26and 1980s, the Betty Andreasson case,
16:30the Whitley Strieber accounts, the
16:32broader cultural surge following a
16:34particular 1987 publishing moment.
16:37That is the consensus origin of the
16:39image as a mass cultural phenomenon.
16:42Pritchard's description is from 1967.
16:45Beaumont's from 1964.
16:48Scholls' from 1969.
16:51These accounts predate the cultural
16:53consolidation of that image by a decade
16:55or more.
16:57These are rural Kansas farmers and ranch
16:59workers describing something with a
17:00consistency that they had no shared
17:03cultural vocabulary to produce
17:05artificially.
17:08I am not saying they all saw the same
17:10being. I am asking, is it possible that
17:13the image we now think of as a cultural
17:15invention was in fact a cultural echo.
17:19A distorted reflection of something that
17:21was being reported and suppressed and
17:23slowly leaking back into consciousness
17:25through different channels.
17:28That question doesn't have a clean
17:30answer.
17:31But I can't stop asking it.
17:34What happened to Eldon Pritchard after
17:36July of 1967 is both simple and strange.
17:40He continued farming. He did not move.
17:43He did not suffer any obvious external
17:45consequence for what he'd reported.
17:48His farm records meticulously kept until
17:51his death in 1983
17:53show normal operation,
17:55planting, harvest, rainfall notes, yield
17:58calculations.
18:00By every visible metric, his life
18:02continued unremarkably.
18:05But Johanson told her daughter one other
18:07thing about Pritchard.
18:08She told her that in the months after
18:10the encounter, he changed in a specific
18:13way.
18:14He stopped talking about the future.
18:17He had been before July of 1967
18:20a man with plans, expansion plans,
18:22equipment upgrades he was saving toward,
18:25a water system he wanted to install.
18:29After the encounter, after the men came,
18:31those conversations stopped.
18:33"Not because he was afraid," Johanson
18:35said,
18:37"or not only because he was afraid,
18:39because he told her once in a brief and
18:41private conversation she was not sure he
18:43meant to have,
18:45something about the encounter had left
18:47him uncertain about time,
18:49about his relationship to the future,
18:52about whether the future, as he'd
18:53understood it, was a reliable concept.
18:56He didn't explain further.
18:58She didn't push. She said it was the
19:00strangest thing she'd ever heard a
19:02farmer say because farmers, by
19:04profession, are people who live entirely
19:07in the future.
19:08Planting is a future tense act. Every
19:11seed is a promise made to a season not
19:13yet arrived.
19:15And Eldon Pritchard, after July 14th,
19:181967,
19:19apparently stopped making those
19:21promises.
19:23Why?
19:24What did he see, or feel, or understand
19:28in those 12 minutes that so
19:29fundamentally altered his relationship
19:32to time?
19:34The pressure behind the eyes, the
19:35stillness that wasn't resting, are these
19:38symptoms of something perceptual,
19:40something done to him, or merely
19:42received?
19:44And here is where the thing that
19:45happened to Pritchard becomes impossible
19:47to ignore as an isolated incident.
19:51Because Clifford Beaumont, in that 1964
19:53case in Liberal, stopped planting winter
19:56wheat after his encounter.
19:58Stopped entirely on a ranch where winter
20:00wheat had been a foundation crop for 20
20:03years.
20:04His employer at the time, who gave a
20:07brief account in that 1988 Paranormal
20:09Newsletter,
20:11said Beaumont had become peculiar about
20:13the ground.
20:15Wouldn't discuss it. Just wouldn't
20:16plant.
20:18Two men, two encounters, two sudden and
20:20unexplained disruptions to their
20:22relationship with the land they worked.
20:25This raises a simple, but critical,
20:27question.
20:28What did they each experience that
20:30produced such a specific and parallel
20:32response?
20:34Not fear, not trauma, exactly. Neither
20:37man exhibited what anyone around them
20:39described as the aftermath of trauma.
20:42Something more precise than that.
20:44Something that seemed to have
20:45reorganized the way they understood
20:47their relationship to the physical
20:48world.
20:50One of the most significant things about
20:52the Pritchard encounter is what was
20:54never reported.
20:56No light, no craft, no sound, no
20:58radiation, no physical injury to
21:01Pritchard or his crops beyond the press
21:03circle and the tracks. Just a figure
21:06walking, standing, gone.
21:09So many cases in this area involve
21:11lights, missing time, physical burns,
21:13electromagnetic interference with
21:15vehicles and equipment. The Pritchard
21:18case has none of that.
21:20And I think that absence is as
21:21significant as any evidence.
21:24Because it suggests, and this is
21:26speculation, I want to be clear, this is
21:29inference built on pattern, that what
21:31Pritchard observed may not have been an
21:33event in the conventional sense, not an
21:35arrival, not a landing or a departure.
21:39Something more like a passage. An entity
21:41moving through the landscape casually
21:44for reasons entirely its own.
21:46In the way that a person might walk
21:48through a field without being aware of
21:50or concerned with the insects underfoot.
21:53Is that more disturbing than the
21:54alternative? I find that it is.
21:59The idea of a craft implies a mission, a
22:01destination, a purposeful presence.
22:05The idea of a figure simply walking
22:07through a Kansas wheat field at 4:47 in
22:09the morning implies something else
22:11entirely.
22:13A familiarity with the landscape. A
22:15comfort with it. A sense that the
22:17landscape belongs to it or has always
22:20belonged to it in ways that predate
22:22Eldon Pritchard's deed of ownership and
22:24his grandfather's claim before him.
22:27I reached out in the course of this
22:29investigation to 12 individuals
22:31connected to these cases.
22:33Former neighbors, descendants of the
22:36witnesses, archivists, two former law
22:39enforcement officers whose names
22:40appeared in adjacent documentation.
22:43Six did not respond. Three responded
22:46briefly and said they had no
22:47information. Two agreed to speak and
22:50then, before those conversations could
22:52occur, withdrew without explanation.
22:56One person, I will say only that they
22:58were connected to the Pritchard case by
23:00family relation,
23:01agreed to a recorded conversation and
23:03then midway through it stopped.
23:07They said quietly that they had been
23:08told not to talk about it. Not recently.
23:12Long ago.
23:13Told by someone they wouldn't name in
23:16terms they wouldn't describe. They said
23:18they had honored that for decades. They
23:21said they weren't sure they still wanted
23:22to honor it, but that they weren't sure
23:25they didn't either.
23:27The call ended there.
23:29I haven't heard from them since. The
23:30silence that surrounds this case is not
23:33the silence of people with nothing to
23:35say.
23:36It's a specific kind of silence, a
23:38shaped silence, the silence of people
23:41who made a decision at some point about
23:43what they would and would not carry into
23:45the remainder of their lives.
23:47What were they protecting?
23:49Themselves, others, or something they
23:51didn't have words for? Some
23:53understanding glimpsed and then
23:54deliberately set aside about the nature
23:57of what Eldon Pritchard saw walking
23:59through his field.
24:02Here is what I know.
24:04On July 14th, 1967
24:07a man watched something walk through his
24:09field.
24:10He documented it. The documentation was
24:13taken.
24:14The official explanation was offered and
24:16then withdrawn into silence.
24:19The case left behind three pages, a
24:21missing incident report, a pressed
24:23circle in the wheat, and a farmer who
24:25stopped believing in the future.
24:28The evidence suggests something much
24:30larger than a single unusual morning in
24:32rural Kansas.
24:34It suggests a pattern, geographic,
24:36temporal, behavioral that someone at
24:39some point decided the public did not
24:41need to see assembled.
24:44What was the being doing in that field?
24:46Where had it come from?
24:48And where did it go?
24:50How many other Eldon Pritchards were
24:52there?
24:53Men and women who saw something, wrote
24:55something down had it taken and spent
24:58the rest of their lives carrying a
25:00knowledge they'd been told to forget.
25:03What is it that certain people in
25:05certain places in certain eras appear to
25:08have witnessed repeatedly, consistently,
25:12and in near identical terms? And why
25:14does the institutional response to those
25:16witnesses follow its own terrible
25:18pattern of erasure?
25:21I don't have those answers. I don't
25:23think I'm meant to.
25:25But somewhere
25:26in a misfiled box in a regional archive
25:28in Pratt, Kansas, or in a set of notes
25:31taken by a man in a dark suit in the
25:34summer of 1967,
25:36or in the memory of the person who ended
25:38that phone call and hasn't spoken to me
25:40since,
25:41the answer exists,
25:43which means it can be found.
25:46And which means someone, somewhere, has
25:49been working very hard to make sure it
25:51isn't. What did Eldon Pritchard
25:53understand standing alone in his field
25:55at dawn that they needed so badly to
25:58take from him?
25:59And what does it mean that 59 years
26:01later we still aren't allowed to know?

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of A Kansas Farmer Watched a Gray Walk Through His Field in 1967 — His Testimony Was Seized Immediately by The Fourth Encounter, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 3,737 words across 689 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.