Talk:Exeter incident

Current article status

...has to be the most pathetic paranormal article I've ever seen, per its status in the UFO community (including the actual admission, by the Air Force to the United States Congress, that it was an aerial object of unknown nature or origin). This will be fixed. --Chr.K. 13:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that the article in its original form was inadequate. It has been expanded and more details added. Feel free to add more details; as you noted, this is an important sighting in UFO history.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk • contribs) 16:41, August 5, 2007‎

deleted paragraph

I removed this troublesome paragraph:

Curiously, prior to the Exeter incident, a U.S. Air Force colonel made contact with James H. Trainor, then a graduate student in the physics department at the University of New Hampshire and a U.S. Air Force research fellow, inquiring about his ability to detect and measure UFO phenomena. Trainor was dispatched to the rooftop of UNH's DeMeritt Hall with two portable instruments. One instrument could detect UFOs if they utilized nuclear propulsion, and one instrument could measure heat at a distance.

The "U.S. Air Force colonel" is unidentified, no date for this mysterious incident is given (it would have to be before 1964), and I have no idea what kind of instrument "could detect UFOs if they utilized nuclear propulsion". Also, I see no reason why this material is relevant to the subject of this article. False vacuum (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

prototype aircraft

i don't have the confidence to edit wikipedia myself, but i think someone should add a section to the article speculating as to what the "exeter ufos" really were. it doesn't have to be original research. i'm sure my "theory" has been propounded by other people in other places, if one were to bother to look for some quotes. isn't it curious how many of these sightings seem to take place in the vicinity of air force bases? it appears to me (and i'm sure this has occurred to many other people) that the exeter sightings were actually of a classified prototype aircraft. the airforce wouldn't want to disclose the existence of this unconventional craft, hence the smokescreen: talk about temperature inversions, b-47's, training exercises, etc. anything but the truth. i'm sure this is the solution to many ufo cases, not only in the united states but in countries such as the former soviet union as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.215.220 (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You may well be right, but in order to include such information it needs to come from a published source - a newspaper or magazine article or perhaps a book on the subject. If someone can find a credible source such information could definitely be included in the article in some way. It wouldn't surprise me if many unexplained UFO sightings were actually of secret military hardware, especially given that the CIA admitted in the 1990's that some UFO sightings in the Western US were of the U-2 and other secret projects going on at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Skeptical Inquirer reports "‘Exeter Incident’ Solved!"

Joe Nickell, prominent paranormal investigator, and James McGaha, Major, USAF retired and astronomer, published a resolution to the Exeter incident in Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 35.6, November/December 2011. Their explanation is available here. I plan to add this as a new section of the article. Overjive (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I added a section to the article describing this explanation. I look forward to comments. Overjive (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

interesting addition, however I found your original edition a bit too POV. I've edited it to reflect the fact that the explanation is in fact only a theory, albeit a pretty good one. Still, conclusions should be left to the reader. The final sentence, "The KC-97 would surely have been used during Operation Big Blast which occurred that evening." Is clearly pure conjecture, unnecessary drawing of a conclusion so I removed it. Still, it was a good idea to add. --SentientParadox (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

My choice of the phrase "would surely" was taken directly from the source material: "Just this type of craft operated out of Strategic Air Command bomber bases like that of Pease AFB and, indeed, would surely have been involved in a SAC/NORAD training exercise like that dubbed “Big Blast” of September 2–3, 1965." Overjive (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It would indeed be a good explanation, if we could account for: a) One of the police witnesses (Bertrand) had participated in a number of aerial refuelings involving KC-97s while serving in the USAF, and stated that there was no resemblance to a tanker aircraft, and b) it does not account for the fact that the object stopped, hovered, and turned on a dime on more than one occasion when sighted. The Air Force themselves admitted also that Operation 'Big Blast' was operationally over before any of the sightings. Just saying.Tonybaldacci (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

To me that last point is very important - the Air Force stated that the military operation was already over when police officers Bertrand and Hunt first saw the UFO, so it's hard to see how it could be a military aircraft. Also, given that the sighting occurred at very close range, it's hard to believe that two policemen, one of whom had served in the Air Force and had seen refueling operations take place, would not have noticed a large Air Force plane flying at low altitude overhead (the plane would have to have been very low for the explanation offered by Nickell and McGaha to work). Also, the McGaha/Nickell explanation doesn't explain all of the other sightings that took place in the Exeter area over the same time period. I suppose their explanation could be correct, of course, but it's hardly an "airtight" explanation, and should not be presented as such in this article, IMO. It should definitely be mentioned as a possible explanation, but not as a definitive one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.210.144 (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

References

NPOV dispute

Wiki's present version of Exeter is missing a rationale as to why the case remained unsolved all these years. This can be mended via some adjustments to the presentation of the case which will more accurately reflect total witness testimonies and reduce some noted bias and advocacy within the present version. Adjustments need to be made in the introductory text which will reflect this as well as some other items which will come to the surface as we explore this.

As adjudicators are aware, the present version of the 1965 Exeter case on Wikipedia highlights the case using a Skeptical Inquirer article as a cornerstone to the entire incident. Our focus is drawn to the mention of that article twice; once at the end of the introductory summation of the Exeter case, and again at the end of the case itself, in even greater detail. This accords it a rather significant role in the portrayal of the event. Of all the other references mentioned on that Wikipedia page, none have been accorded this much space or prominence.

It is well within editorial jurisdiction and responsibility to question the reasoning behind this privilege. Any article accorded this much significance on any Wikipedia page should certainly require closer interior examination. This is especially necessary if it is not following or is bending Wiki guidelines. A recent examination of the SI article and how it was implemented on the Wiki Exeter_incident page has exposed this issue amongst others.

The following is a basic summation of the first two problems. The need for resolution of a third will become apparent as we proceed.

The Main Problems With The Exeter Page are Threefold:

A) NPOV Issue: The Skeptical Inquirer article, 'Exeter Incident' Solved! A Classic UFO Case, Forty-Five Years ‘Cold’ by James McGaha and Joe Nickell (footnote #9), is used as a cornerstone to the Wikipedia Exeter incident page and readers are directed to their study from that page. However, knowledgeable people regarding this case are aware the cornerstone used is not neutral and has broken a number of Wikipedia’s general guidelines, some of which Wikipedia has emphasized are non-negotiable. Wikipedia should find this unacceptable since any article worthy of cornerstone status and expanded on any Wiki page should, at the minimum, follow basic Wiki guidelines.

B) VERIFIABILITY AND BIAS Issue: There are bias and information suppression issues within McGaha and Nickell’s workup on the Exeter case of which Wikipedia, to this time, seems to have overlooked. Those issues are fully illustrated and confirmed via previously Wiki-requested missing citations, now accessible on-line; (i.e. scans from John Fuller’s 1966 original book) The citations make it obvious many important testimonies which refute the basic premise of the study were omitted. Due to this situation, the present overall Wikipedia page in its present form, is tainted with bias, and the footnote #9 e-paper does not warrant the prominence and space presently accorded.

Comments are invited and welcome. --Rjc¹ Respectfully 19:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

What dispute? We summarize what reliable independent sources say, and the Skeptical Inquirer is a high quality source for fringe topics. What reliable source calls the article "biased"? It is unclear which alternative sources you are recommending.

The lead section of any article should summarize the body of the article. That is why the Skeptical Inquirer article is mentioned twice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not really an alternative source. The reliable source is one of the prime original main sources which the Skeptical Inquirer article is based upon; John Fuller’s 1966 book “The Exeter Incident.” The title of the Exeter incident page would not exist without it. The following three links establish this source.

Exeter Incident cover

publisher

date & address

Additionally, I am following what Wikipedia has instructed me to do, however you are absolutely correct concerning the use of the word bias at this time. You had told me to summate my concerns. Rjc1 added 5/23/2015 --> Please substitute the words "information suppression" for the word "bias." Thank you.

a quote from Wikipedia’s Primer for Newcomers

Verifiability

"For information to be included on Wikipedia, it has to be verifiable. This means that others can check for themselves to see that whatever is included in an article can be confirmed elsewhere. Just saying something is true doesn't automatically make it so."

I am an “other” and an editor and, to aid in editing, have checked my proposed editing against the Wiki page for verifiabilty. This included the Skeptical Inquirer article since it had so much to do with the page. As I did this I noticed, amongst other things, some Wiki article anomalies regarding some of the guidelines Wikipedia had me read. This caused me to read further.

As Exeter incident adjudicators know, a header on the Exeter incident Wiki page says:

"This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2014)’’ ""

Looking at the above Wiki page header, one notices that previous vetting has indicated some items of verification are missing. The page’s announced need for certificates of verification clearly informs all the Wiki page itself isn't fully verified yet.

As stated above, I have brought a number of source certificates with me which pertain directly to that request. Certain things examined have failed verification from one of the S.I. article’s most primary sources, the 1966 John Fuller book.--Rjc¹ Respectfully 23:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

A book by John G. Fuller is not a reliable source for use in Wikipedia. He was a fringe writer who advocated pseudoscience. I will oppose any use of his writings as sources in Wikipedia. We need sources with a reputation for accuracy.

I have no idea what you mean by "adjudicators". Our articles are written by editors who summarize what reliable sources (not fringe sources) say about various topics. This is not negotiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Responding to your answer

Paragraph 2: Jim, just to momentarily clear the air about your last comment. No negative connotation was intended concerning the word adjudicator. It was just meant as a delineation of tasks. A person who edits determines the final context of a text. A person who makes a formal judgement on a disputed matter is an adjudicator. Your job at Wikipedia is multi-faceted.

Paragraph 1: What is interesting is that Fuller’s book was deemed important enough by the ‘'Skeptical Inquirer'’ article to be used for various references in the “Solutions” and “Solved” portions of their paper. So Fuller is O.K.ed for ‘'their'’ use but has been “fringed” for me. Either he is “fringed” or he isn’t. Evidently there were some things he said that were worth examining.

Continuing onward:

A problem with this privileged use occurs when one selectively chooses some things of Fuller’s to examine without making a solid effort to examine the rest. If there is specific information in his book that can be studied for factualness (or not), it should be permitted. This leads one to ask what other information the Skeptical Inquirer article may possibly have omitted. Fuller’s book contained a transcript of tape-recorded testimonies made by numerous witnesses to the Exeter events (N.B. A hint the case was not simply one event.) In actuality, it was the totality of those events which comprised the essence of the case. The original investigators and even USAF were forced to realize that even if it were possible to solve one incident, the other incidents had to be taken into consideration as well. Fuller wasn't the only one to document the events.

In the Hynek UFO Report, the same book cited by the Skeptical Inquirer authors, Dr. J. Allen Hynek related the following.

Hynek concerning the Exeter case

It is also pertinent to note the Wikipedia article mentioned Mr. Raymond Fowler as an “also” but failed to recognize the true importance of his workup, both to the Air Force examination and the A.F.’s final determination concerning the case. Please do not get confused between Fowler and Fuller in this next section. They are two different people.

Focusing on one of the things Hynek had said regarding Fuller and Fowler regarding this case,

Hynek concerning Fuller and Fowler

The extensive report from Ray Fowler contained signed statements from witnesses, and additional information he had gathered. That report plus the Air Force/Pentagon’s eventual inability to resolve this were the major contributing factors as to why the Air Force revised its original theory concerning the Exeter events. The events remained *unsolved* thereafter. The circumstantial evidence was overwhelming. Fowler’s entire report on this was read into the Congressional Record during a hearing on UFOs. Reading the Skeptical Inquirer e-paper, one discovers Fowler and his report is not mentioned therein.

To do an honest study of something, you don’t delete the data first before studying it

I realize you don’t want to look at anything that Fuller says because he has been Wiki-fringed. However, Fuller did tell us that at the start of his investigation he went to see Raymond Fowler (bringing a tape recorder and notebook) both so he could evaluate Fowler for himself, and gather information regarding witnesses who Fuller might then tape-interview. Ray Fowler verifies this.

John Fuller concerning the tapes

Fuller found Fowler to be quite competent and thorough, and Fowler eventually provided the names and addresses of a generous number of some eyewitnesses to the Muscarello/Bertrand/Hunt sighting at Exeter. In the course of interviewing Fowler’s witnesses including the police, Fuller then discovered other leads. The names and addresses of the individuals Fuller interviewed were eventually included in his book along with their sighting descriptions, a number of which had been previously written up in a number of newspapers. (Newspapers, Editors, etc. were named as well. Fuller had discussions with some of them.) Therefore, the majority if not all of this could be checked. This is how one knows there were numerous additional events to Muscarello’s which occurred and how this fact was verified. Some of these events had larger number of witnesses, circumstances and details which were even more impressive than Muscarello’s. They could not be explained by either outside investigators or USAF. There were upwards of 60 witnesses. When you discount Fuller’s work, you are discounting the taped and transcribed testimonies. Yet we should remember, Hynek praised Fuller's book as well-documented.

Additionally, from above we can see, John Fuller’s book was not the only source for this information. The Air Force’s inability to explain the available testimonies, etc. was part of the reason USAF was eventually forced to reverse its initial estimate of the case. Raymond Fowler had pressed the issue and they found they could not explain it.

The reason for discussing the preceding

Concerning the Skeptical Inquirer paper: Any honest effort to study this case, spurred by simple curiosity, should have included contacting newspapers, editors, claimed witnesses, and libraries which store this type information to verify (or not) those sightings mentioned. This was not accomplished by the Skeptical Inquirer Exeter incident authors. They said it was “beyond the scope of their investigation.”

Click here if necessary to verify this

From a scientific standpoint, to not check what could and should be checked is unacceptable. The elimination of this information from the study without examining the stated evidence which thwarted original solution by investigators and USAF immediately renders it only a partial investigation which could not possibly lead to a complete definitive solution for the 1965 Exeter case, and could potentially skew the results.

When Fuller’s interviews were eventually completed, Fuller had the witnesses’ voices on tape. He told us he had recorded them so he could bring it back to his editors to prove he wasn’t just creating any of this himself. As we said, the Exeter Incident wasn’t just one sighting, it was ‘'sighting(s).’' That’s what the Air Force couldn’t explain; the solid, unexplainable testimonies. (The very ones Wikipedia is removing from the table for discussion, and from history.) Those testimonies, discovered and closely examined during his first-hand investigation, eventually drew Fuller to this topic in later years.

But we have now established there were more sightings and more witnesses which remain undiscussed and are presently being erased from people's awareness.

Statement to the number of witnesses

The importance of Ray Fowler’s report concerning the Exeter sightings is further demonstrated by the fact, on April 5, 1966, the House Armed Services Committee unanimously voted Fowler’s entire report on the Exeter sighting into the Congressional Record during the first open Congressional hearings on UFOs. This can be confirmed via the Congressional Record. As we discovered previously Hynek, after his own examination, was impressed with it . As he told us at an above link, the Air Force had even used a great deal of it in their Project Blue Book report. During that same congressional hearing, Hynek testified to Congress that the Air Force could not solve it. (It is in the record.)

Because Fowler and his report were accepted into the Congressional record, praised by Dr. Hynek, were used by Blue Book in its report, and were influential in the Air Force’s decision concerning the case, we realize he and his report were not just an "also" as presently indicated on the Wiki-Exeter incident page. It is without doubt he, his report, and the witnesses testimonies most certainly deserve a more accurate accounting therein, with the goal of attaining proper balance in the article.

I have additional pertinent information to contribute. The rest of my comments are not based on anything concerning Fowler or Fuller, but rather on the 'Skeptical Inquirer' e-paper itself and its application to the Wikipedia page. This will include the approach taken by the SI study and whether or not it is actually valid. Support for my comments is based on many of the same sources used in the S.I. e-paper, and certain Wikipedia guidelines. It is hoped that knowledge concerning these things will allow one to acquire a more complete understanding of the Exeter case, and to realize my reasons for eventual proposed editing changes.--Rjc¹ Respectfully 18:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

If a reliable source analyzes and refutes an unreliable source, that discussion does not transform the unreliable source into a reliable one. That is illogical. I invite you to take any source you propose to add to the article to the Reliable sources noticeboard. We do not allow the use of unreliable, fringe sources on Wikipedia. Use them all you want in your off-Wikipedia blogging, but not here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Responding to your *illogic* comment - and regarding John Fuller

Is it more logical to besmirch someone’s character so completely that original data from the case at hand (testimonies, etc.), is totally removed from the possibility of discussion and obliterated from history? Does Wikipedia believe this will actually aid present or future investigators’ analyses which seek to accurately depict and solve the Exeter incident? We have evidence that the chief civilian consultant on UFOs to USAF for approximately twenty years had indicated Fowler and Fuller’s material was extremely important to the analysis and original resolution of the 1965 Exeter case. Those two gentlemen were prime data gathers whose material was used by the original investigators. Doesn’t any paper claiming solution for an event need to be ‘’accurate to’’ and encompass the ‘’total’’ pertinent material the original investigators (including USAF) used in their decision making process regarding the case? Don’t we need to know ‘’what’’ they felt was specifically important about it? How can anyone claim a valid, definitive solution derived sans this? Awareness of this missing data is surely reason enough to examine the SI article regarding its claim.

Hynek regarding the case, and Fowler and Fuller

 Suppression of original data

If an unwanted outcome of “fringing” and the manner in which it has been applied here is ‘’suppression of original data,’’ we have done something wrong. In this instance, this thinking needs adjustment, Fuller’s data regarding this case needs to be kept in the mix and, at the very least, kept available for discussion. The information Fowler and he gathered at the time was not only important to those original investigators but also affected both USAF’s decision and Fowler himself for the rest of his life. These are some of the things I will discuss at the Reliable sources noticeboard. ‘’But the other items I found regarding ‘’the application of the SI paper to the Wiki Exeter incident page and Wiki guidelines’’ should probably be discussed first.’’ They do not depend on the outcome of this discussion concerning fringing, and they affect my proposed editing.

Misstatement regarding one of the main original data gatherers - Raymond Fowler

Although it may have gotten lost in the shuffle, I did demonstrate the need for a rewrite of the Wiki article concerning an apparent misstatement of Fowler’s actual importance to the original investigation. He was more than an “also.” I believe I proved my point with the posting of the Hynek UFO Report link and Hynek’s statements concerning Fowler’s contribution and why it was important. Another glance at the bottom of the preceding URL will confirm this. This should be corrected.

Concerning one-sided discussion

Also, in this instance, “I can use this material but you can’t” and total blanket fringing of individuals with no regard to circumstance is ill-advised logic and is geared to generate a one-sided discussion of the issues. It is certainly *censorship of both myself and the original case material.* This technique is guaranteed to keep any aspiring editor from a fair, relevant discussion of the Wiki page regarding Exeter 1965 and is not really in Wikipedia’s best interest.

A final important question

Which is a more “reliable” source, a discussion which incorporates *all* the evidence thought important by and affecting the decision of the original investigators, or one in which select parts of it have been eliminated from the possibility of discussion?

Jim, this is what I explained to you I wanted to do. If I am doing something wrong, I'll correct it. Sincere thanks for your assistance in helping me get this portion of my discussion a little more concise. -- Rjc¹ Respectfully 01:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Let me repeat myself: This article will be built on summarizing what reliable, secondary, independent sources, such as the Skeptical Inquirer article, say about the topic. Fringe sources are not acceptable, and neither are credulous, gullible sources. Censorship is not involved as this is a private website with its own policies and guidelines, and no governments restrict our content. You are perfectly free to write whatever you want without restriction on your own websites and blogs. If you want go contribute to the #6 or #7 most popular website in the world, then you must comply with our policies and guidelines. As I suspect that we may disagree on which sources are reliable, you are welcome to propose sources for review at the Reliable sources noticeboard. The basic principle of summarizing what reliable sources say is a core content policy and is simply not negotiable. Count on me to oppose inclusion of fringe sources 100% of the time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Um, Jim, John Fuller was a journalist - back when that meant a professional writer - and spent a lot of time and effort investigating this event and interviewing lots of people, and so forth. How anyone can dismiss someone's on-the-spot research, taking many man-hours over a period of months, and then take an "explanation" cooked up by a couple of gents 45 years after the fact as Gospel truth is beyond me. How exactly do you decide who is a fringe source, and who is reliable? I'm genuinely curious about this, sir.--Tonybaldacci (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the skeptics who edited this article about a year ago (Healthy Girl) was later banned when it was discovered they were a sockpuppet for an already-banned poster, Anglo Pyramidologist. That alone should make one suspicious about the quality of the edits. Describing the Skeptical Inquirer explanation for the incident is fine - as long it as it is clearly described as a proposed solution, and not the final word on the incident. There have been UFO cases (such as the Mantell UFO incident) in which the initial proposed explanation was eventually rejected, even by UFO skeptics, and other explanations put forward. There have been some detailed rebuttals of the McGaha-Nickell explanation posted around the web, but I'm sure that most skeptical editors would dismiss these rebuttals as coming from unreliable sources, so posting them here is probably not going to happen. I would suggest, however, that this article needs some editing to tighten the narrative and make it better organized and written. In addition to the McGaha-Nickell explanation, UFO debunker Robert Sheaffer also provides details of the incident in his book The UFO Evidence, and skeptic Curtis Peebles offers a brief description in his book Watch the Skies! A Chronicle of the Flying Saucer Myth. I also see nothing wrong with using Fuller's book Incident at Exeter as a source for some basic details, provided that qualifying words such as "claimed" are used, and Jerome Clark's The UFO Encyclopedia also offers some credible details, I think. Also, I know that several New England newspapers covered the incident, so a google search may turn up some more reliable sources there. Basically, what this article needs is some good editing, along with a rewrite to make it better-organized and clearer. Just my two cents.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk • contribs) 01:41, June 5, 2017 (UTC)

My 2 cents. There is NO WAY to say that Fuller is not a 'reliable source' while S.I. is that reliable. In the best cases, both have their own agendas. For a wikipedia POV it's totally indifferent if UFO exist or not. There is not a non-neutral site, isn't? So both the hypotesis should treated equally. NOW, two things make definitively stronger Fuller vs McGaha and friends. 1) Fuller investigated this UFO case deeply and well, while McGaha did not. 2) the Fuller investigation was NEVER put in discussion by S.I. on the contrary they used it as basis to write another kind of explaination of this sightings. So it was not Fuller to rely on SI but the contrary? Therefore, anyone who claims that FUller is not reliable and SI yes, then should admit that SI is not reliable at all, as they rely on Fuller research NOT TO DISMISS IT DIRECTLY, but to make another kind of explaination, that is NOT the same thing.

3) there is another point that weakens totally the SI position as 'reliable source'. The simply fact that they pretend to explain the event with an explaination that actually cannot macht the phenomena observed, included the hovering, the repeated sighthings, the lack of noise and the simply fact that a KC-97 could not fly so low at night while refuelling to even illuminate the house just below. It's a total nonsense as no SAC bomber would need really to fly so near the enemy borders, to need a night, low level AR. Definitively not likely and the KC-97 would make a lot of noise in any way.

So SI analysys simply doesn't take account for several points of the whole sighting. Is it still a 'reliable source'? Yes, perhaps. Is it a SUPERIOR source vs Fuller? Only a 'skeptic' editor would believe this, as the Fuller work was the BASIS for SI work that only 'debunked' a part of the 'strange' things observed, no matter if their analysis is really the right one or not. Simply, Wikipedia cannot do such distinctions between sources and in this way, it seems obvious that Fuller is more important than the 'explaination' made 45 years later based on Fuller Work. 62.11.3.98 (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Kite Solution

If anybody here ever gets the enthusiasm to wanting to write a more comprehensive account of the Exeter Incident, its problems and attempted explanations, I offer here an annotated bibliography of materials related to a less known solution. Martin S. Kottmeyer, “The Exeter File – Part 1,” The REALL News, 4, #9; September 1996; pp. 1, 5-6. http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n02/index.html This half provides the definitive critique arguing why this classic does not involve an alien craft. Martin S. Kottmeyer, “The Exeter File – Part 2 – The Exeter Terrestrial Hypothesis,” The REALL News, 4, #10, October 1996, pp. 1, 6.: http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n02/index.html An inventive solution: A moving star kite. Martin S. Kottmeyer, “Letter,” The REALL News, 4, #12, December 1996, pp. 4, 8: http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n02/index.html A response to Dennis Stacy’s early criticisms of this solution of the Exeter case. Thomas E. Bullard, The Myth and Mystery of UFOs, University Press of Kansas, 2010, pp.35-38, 305-8. Bullard is the most high-status critic of the kite solution and launders criticisms of less-notable critics in this account. While he accepts Exeter is unlikely to be alien, he merely argues it is mysterious and fails to provide a new solution or say which solution is best. Most of the criticisms are fairly frivolous like the late hour of the event and a strange geometric criticism which presumes the witnesses would not factor in the effects of perspective and not regard the 60-degree angle as implicitly constant relative to the ground rather than constant relative to themselves. The most convincing-sounding criticism involves Officer Bertrand’s statement that the bottom lights pointed forward when the object moved. A western wind would bear the kite east from the tether point, so the uppermost light on the line would point farthest eastward. Since the UFO moved off to the east, the upper light would lead if the object were a kite. It is important to point out that the information about the lights moving easterly is made by neither Bertrand nor Muscarello, but David R. Hunt who comes later on the scene than the other two. He wrote “After observing the lights for a short period of time, they moved off in a southeasterly direction and disappeared in the distance. The lights appeared to remain at the same altitude which I estimate to be about one-hundred feet.” Now I look at that and think, thank goodness. The object exited in basically the right direction. The prankster finally realizes there are cops around. What do you do? You let go and run and hide. The wind carries the kite off in a basically easterly direction; consistent with Pease AFB’s saying the winds were uniformly from the west. One might quibble that southeasterly is not precisely easterly, but, in practice there are angles consistent with both labels. An overlap exists and so no outright contradiction is involved here. Thomas E. Bullard, “Is the Anomalist on a Fool’s Errand” Paranthropology 5, #1 (January 2014) pp. 4-31. Bullard discusses Exeter at some length and notes some of the problems of the McGaha & Nickell explanation and shows some interest in a new solution by Michael Swords suggesting a distant formation of planes might work better. The obvious problem is given in the next item. Martin Kottmeyer, Comment on Gareth Davis & Reeves Cook.s discussion of the Exeter case February 8, 2014: http://www.mindsetcentral.com/archives/14182 The angle made by a refueling boom is precisely mirror opposite what Officer Bertrand reported. At least the kite explanation doesn’t look absurdly dyslexic. On this point and others, the kite solution is far less silly. Nicholas, Callis, “Grey Matters: Erroneous at Exeter” The Bent Spoon: http://thebentspoonmagazine.com/2013/03/24/erroneous-at-exeter/ Why the light sequence of a refueling tanker does not match Exeter. Ryan Mullahy, “The Exeter UFO Incident Remains Unsolved: A Rebuttal to "Exeter Incident’ Solved!" http://nhuforesearch.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-exeter-ufo-incident-remains.html A broad-stroked attack on the McGaha & Nickell explanation. The original documents of the case as presented in Hynek UFO Report can be read here: http://ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseSubarticle.asp?ID=431 Exeteriorview (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hunt Dead in 2011

In a discussion with New Hampshire UFO Research, I was informed that Hunt died in 2011. Perhaps that should be noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.76.215 (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)