Brownstown photographic UFO report — January 5, 1975

At approximately 14:30 on January 5, 1975, fifteen-year-old David Mahon was behind his home at a place identified in the catalogue as Brownstown. He was using a camera to photograph his dog when an unfamiliar sound interrupted the ordinary afternoon activity. David heard a loud droning noise and looked upward. He reported seeing a black disc-shaped object passing overhead. The brief source does not preserve a measured diameter, altitude, speed, surface detail or visible occupants. David reportedly took five photographs of the object. The existence of that five-frame sequence is central to the account, but no authenticated original negative, contact sheet or documented print was available for this pass. The Atlas therefore does not display later online images as David's photographs without a verified custody chain. After taking the pictures, David said he felt himself being drawn upward. He then lost consciousness. The source does not state whether anyone saw his body leave the ground, how long he was unresponsive or where the camera and dog were during the interval. The preserved abstract ends at that point. It supplies no remembered craft interior, occupants, examination, dialogue, return sequence or medical aftermath. Those details are absent, not invitations to complete the story with a standard abduction template. The case is attributed to Eileen Sperber and David Shert through a HUMCAT 1975 entry. The catalogue assigns high strangeness and a reliability number, but those editorial scores are not measurements and do not substitute for the missing primary material. A later catalogue comment suggests that hypnotic regression might have revealed more. That is explicitly a proposed future inquiry, not evidence that hypnosis was performed or that additional memories were recovered. The Atlas does not report hypothetical findings as events. The location label also requires caution. The accessible summary says Brownstown without preserving a state or a more precise site. The dossier does not silently select among places with that name. CE4 is retained because the reported upward pull and loss of consciousness could represent an involuntary taking within the witness's account. It does not establish that David entered the disc or travelled anywhere. The five reported photographs could become the most important media for the case if located. Before display, each would require comparison with the original sequence, negative generation, photographer attribution, publication history and rights status. Until then, only source routes are linked. The portrait reconstructs the last continuous exterior moment: David, fully clothed and on the ground, looks up from photographing his dog as a plain black disc passes overhead. It is not one of the five reported photographs and does not depict an undocumented abduction sequence.