According to Don Berlinner’s summary:

Aug. 24, 1954; Egilstadir, Iceland. 8:30 p.m. Witness: one unnamed farmer. A cylinder, 2-2.5’ long, 4-5’ in diameter, made a loud whiz- zing sound, flew straight and level fast, then slow, then fell into sandbar.1

This seems to be a rather interesting case. Is this a case where physical evidence was recovered? Was it a cylinder or was it some- thing else?

Blue Book investigation

The file is very small and does not contain a lot of information. The USAF sent an investigative team to locate the “cylinder” but

2

failed to find anything. Even though they used a mine detector, its limited capabilities prevented them from seeing anything

that was buried deep below the soil. Compounding the problem was that the witness did not mark the location until almost a week after the incident and that the river had rose and fell before the team investigated the area. It was assumed that the “cylinder” had been buried in the river bed somewhere. The USAF chose not to dig up the area as it would have been too expensive. Today, people would be appalled by this approach as it would destroy the natural environment of the river. The “UFO” might still be buried there today since nobody chose to look for it after this. Wouldn’t this be a job for the great Roswell dig team?

Conclusions

While we can’t solve this one without the physical evidence, it seems highly unlikely that the object was anything incredible or unknown to science. So mundane is this event that Kevin Randle did not even mention it in his Appendix listing UFO crashes in his book “A history of UFO crashes”.3 Certainly this qualifies as a “UFO crash” or does it?

It was suggested that it might have been a bird or some sort of debris dropped from an aircraft. Research indicated there were no aircraft in the area but what if the time or date was not quite correct? Then again, it might have been some sort of airborne object that ejected from a volcano or some other possible source. I would hardly describe this as evidence of something truly exotic in nature. It can remain “unidentified” but one must consider the fact that it was only reported by one witness. Single witness obser- vations tend to have a large potential for error. This makes it more a case of an “insufficient information” than “unknown”.

Quelle: SUNlite 5/2015