tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post2393691387788506169..comments2024-03-24T20:16:30.097-07:00Comments on The Big Study: The Recent Fuss About The Exeter CaseThe Professorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-81047081217266250442016-11-23T20:14:13.280-08:002016-11-23T20:14:13.280-08:00This is a field research case document by Ray Fowl...This is a field research case document by Ray Fowler as a NICAP investigator. It's a primary case report, not a published document like an article or commentary. To personally read it (since you won't believe any secondary commentator), you'd have to go somewhere where the document or a photocopy was in an organization's or person's files --- as I did at CUFOS. Frankly, it's hard to work up enthusiasm to dig out anything for someone named "unknown." The label "UFO Proponent" reeks of a debunker's stance, giving one even less incentive. The labeling of my blog as "this board" (it is no UFO discussion board; it is my personal blog) also shows little care. The Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-41598697625927202292016-11-19T14:38:41.974-08:002016-11-19T14:38:41.974-08:00No UFO proponent has ever given me this report or ...No UFO proponent has ever given me this report or even so much as given me a citation of it. Nobody on this board responded to my question. New Hampshire UFO research was only willing to take a quick screenshot of one page for me. Could someone please paste at least a citation for it? Thanks.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15773191632239424867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-56077275576239375242016-07-10T00:26:57.515-07:002016-07-10T00:26:57.515-07:00I've been unable to get this complete report a...I've been unable to get this complete report anywhere. If someone would be able to tell me where to get it, I'd be much indebted.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15773191632239424867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-79844838245670347752016-07-09T13:02:47.752-07:002016-07-09T13:02:47.752-07:00Ray Fowler's investigation documents for NICAP...Ray Fowler's investigation documents for NICAP.The Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-13735107827956539312016-07-09T01:41:52.447-07:002016-07-09T01:41:52.447-07:00Could someone please tell me in what report these ...Could someone please tell me in what report these angular diameter comparisons are made (quarter, grapefruit)? I'd quite like to see the relevant snippet if possible.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15773191632239424867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-45073239263724385662013-12-10T07:21:38.857-08:002013-12-10T07:21:38.857-08:00??? Yes, I see that you have quoted my paragraph ...??? Yes, I see that you have quoted my paragraph from above. The Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-77139283771717957392013-12-09T18:28:56.242-08:002013-12-09T18:28:56.242-08:00ah apologies if i am sounding like im requesting y...ah apologies if i am sounding like im requesting you visit other sites and verify their stories, not my intention at all. <br /><br />by the way , i just want to clarify that the woman driver part i mentioned is from your post above , here is your paragraph in the above post <br /><br />One of the police officers [Eugene Bertrand] had interacted with a near hysterical woman [unidentified] earlier who said that her car had been chased by a brilliant red glowing object, which dived at her auto several times. He hadn't taken that seriously before but now he was beginning to. He went back with Muscarello to the farm area. Nothing. They walked down into the field. Nothing.<br /><br />miloAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-74930708638135373452013-12-08T07:28:44.908-08:002013-12-08T07:28:44.908-08:00well, it's the Exeter case, but I'm not go...well, it's the Exeter case, but I'm not going to go there and evaluate their published details to say whether they are "correct". That's not a reasonable request to assess other website's treatments of any information. I'll be willing [within reason] to respond to specific details about anomalies [regardless of origin] when I can, but "cleansing" other site's materials? No. The Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-58372480499608041332013-12-07T20:57:41.570-08:002013-12-07T20:57:41.570-08:00from http://www.ufocasebook.com/Exeter.html
"...from http://www.ufocasebook.com/Exeter.html<br /><br />"Meanwhile, at the Exeter Police Station, Officer Eugene Bertrand received a call from a frightened woman who stated that a large, silent object with flashing lights had followed her car for twelve miles from the city of Epping to a spot on the road where she pulled off in fear."<br /><br />according to Bertrand :<br /><br />""Well, it seemed to tilt and come right at us. Norman told me later that I was yelling, 'I'll shoot it! I'll shoot it!' I did automatically drop on one knee and drew my service revolver, but I didn't shoot. I do remember suddenly thinking that it would be unwise to fire at it, so I yelled to Norman to run for the cruiser, but he just froze in his tracks. I practically had to drag him back!"<br /><br />i assume the case as described in that website is correct and the same with what you read , prof ? if im mistaken the sorry for the trouble<br /><br />miloAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-8243233004574555552013-04-10T06:59:33.896-07:002013-04-10T06:59:33.896-07:00Hi, Brownie.
I'm almost certain that Milo mus...Hi, Brownie.<br /><br />I'm almost certain that Milo must be remembering another incident. There are certainly a small pile of "stalker" cases in my files [might give an entry on them actually now that this is being mentioned] --- the last one mentioned on the blog was one of the Wanaque cases. The Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-45407900500750993902013-04-10T01:19:16.856-07:002013-04-10T01:19:16.856-07:00I received these two posts in my email, being stil...I received these two posts in my email, being still susbcribed to this year old thread. (not complaining though, enjoying it!)<br /><br />I'm wondering if the anonymous poster Milo might be referring to an account he read in one the books written by Ray Fowler or John Fuller regarding the Exeter NH ufos. For whatever reason the woman being chased (stalked) by a ufo rings a bell with me. I just don't know where exactly I read it from ( I'm thinking Fowler or Fuller). Right now, I'm too lazy to pour through my copies of those two authors books.<br /><br />~ SusanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-87722703378569333682013-04-09T10:59:43.519-07:002013-04-09T10:59:43.519-07:00This is not a BOL but a CE1.
No "woman drive...This is not a BOL but a CE1.<br /><br />No "woman driver" is mentioned in the post, so this inquiry is strange to me.<br /><br />There was also no pulling of gun..... The Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-49735061350629675772013-04-09T06:45:55.221-07:002013-04-09T06:45:55.221-07:00prof
are there known high strangeness stuff happe...prof<br /><br />are there known high strangeness stuff happened in exeter encounter ? is this real BoL type ufo phenomena or a straight magonia type apparation aka trickster type ? i mean if that thing terrorize that women driver by diving at her repeatedly thats horribly scary but did the car also experienced shutdown like most ufo encounter ? also when the officer and witness got suprised by the ufo, i read somewhere that the officer draw his gun and said he is going to fire if it come closer, in other CE3 type case didnt the UfO phenomena usually paralyze or incapacitate a person who display hostile act?<br /><br />based on the data from exeter case file, what do you think happened (your opinion off course)<br /><br />regards<br />miloAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-15994606391085632742012-05-01T18:26:18.844-07:002012-05-01T18:26:18.844-07:00b"h
After looking at an online map of the Ex...b"h<br /><br />After looking at an online map of the Exeter area I agree Professor that the "directional dispute" is pretty much irrelevant. I grew up in a place where the paved and gravel roads of the county were nearly all aligned to N S E W. But the area around Exeter has roads curving in every crazy direction EXCEPT N S E W. So at 3 A.M., when your prime concern is a brilliant intimidating set of lights that are not stationary, but floating around, are you going to remember to unpack your compass and shoot an azimuth every ten seconds? The sloppiness on this point is regrettable, but it still doesn't explain away what the three experienced and maintained without denial from that time on.benkeshetnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-80439976501780181572012-05-01T09:41:42.946-07:002012-05-01T09:41:42.946-07:00Thanks. I'm aware of Martin's excellent ri...Thanks. I'm aware of Martin's excellent ripping apart of CSICOPs Exeter debunking. He feels that such things need a minutely specific thrashing and if that's how he sees it, that's fine by me. The larger picture, in my view, is, however, that no distance airplane activity comes anywhere near dealing with the witness testimony. The growing apparent size of the set of sequencing lights and the terrifying brightness just blows all such ideas away. <br /><br />What this is leading to, in a negative way, is not that any reasonable human will sign up for CSICOPs crazy opinion, but that some UFOlogists will war with one another about some "directional dispute" which has arisen because of this new more minute examination of some of the case details. This [to me irrelevant] dispute will involve what direction Bertrand saw the object coming from, and then what direction did he see it leave. I will give you a hint at the answer: it is clear --- totally clear --- that Bertrand and Muscarello while standing down in the field, saw the object come from the ESE direction across the trees and right at them, lights a-blazing. Once B&M were back at the squad car, it is clear at least to me, that they saw the object skim across the treeline generally [by eye] east to west, but getting northernly as it went. Once sinking into a gap in the treeline, the thing drifted a little --- a LITTLE not a lot --- back easterly in that gap while moving generally northerly roughly towards Pease AFB. You, if you continue to follow this, will hear that the thing instead came back severely east and left in the direction that it came. This confusion/error has arisen in the record from three sources: Hunt and Bertrand initially having their heads turned around thinking they were facing south instead of north --- and error which got into the USAF report, but which they figured out BEFORE Fowler even got up there. #2: Bertrand being a flighty conversationalist while describing the event to Fuller, and Fuller a lousy interviewer so as not to insist upon a clean step-by-step recounting of the action. And #3: the fact, sadly, that Fuller uses dramatic license while putting together quotes in his book. In a key quote he has Bertrand say that the object left "towards Hampton". which Bertrand does NOT say in the typed transcript of the interview. <br /><br />As I say, this will all cause a big brouhaha even though it has nothing to do with how powerful the in-your-face action of the object was in the case.The Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-20639332809857055042012-05-01T07:22:22.574-07:002012-05-01T07:22:22.574-07:00b"h
The analysis by Martin Shough at the fol...b"h<br /><br />The analysis by Martin Shough at the following link tears the CSI Exeter Solved article apart point by point.<br /><br />http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2012/mar/m26-001.shtml<br /><br />Also, the following link has a better view of the KC-97 director lights panel that the Exeter Solved article says was responsible for witness testimony of the five bright red lights:<br /><br />http://dl.dropbox.com/u/74588540/026_kc-97g_pima%20best.jpg<br /><br />You will notice that there are four red panels and a blue or dark green panel in the middle. In fact you can see the blue pane in the Exeter Solved article if you look closely. Moreover, both photos are of the same KC-97 at the Pima Museum, so it would seem that Mr. McGaha knew the center light was blue, not red, when he posted his article. <br /><br />You can also see that the top panel has the letters DWN, the next with FWD, then the blue center pane, then ? F ? (probably AFT) and you can make out UP on the bottom red pane. So for the greater part of a refueling operation these lights were steady and low, not sequencing (if they ever actually "sequenced" - I don't think that assertion has been proved yet!), to let the pilot being refueled read positioning directions.<br /><br />Best.benkeshetnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-29128639256773503912012-04-22T10:43:42.684-07:002012-04-22T10:43:42.684-07:00HI, Mike,
I've known Joe Nickell casually for...HI, Mike,<br /><br />I've known Joe Nickell casually for years, since he wrote several articles for Fate while I worked there. They were good pieces. They were good because their targets (e.g., specific Fortean tall tales) were debunkable via solid research, evidence, and analysis with which no reasonable person could quarrel. In the years since then, Nickell's work has grown ever shakier as it's addressed more difficult, better documented cases, of which Exeter is only the most recent example. <br /><br />To correct the record: debunking is not Nickell's "hobby" but his job. As far as I know, he's still on the payroll of the parent organization for the former CSICOP. (I can never remember what either organization is called these days, since neither has much relevance in my life.) A bright and often interesting guy with whom I've never exchanged a heated or other unkind word, Nickell personifies what happens, sadly, when an otherwise smart guy embraces an unquestioning -- dare I say unskeptical? -- ideological skepticism. It's the difference between being skeptical, which every sensible individual is when the occasion calls for it, and being _a_ skeptic, a wholly different matter altogether, as much unhappy history attests.Jerome Clarknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-88534268246207280332012-04-22T08:48:38.690-07:002012-04-22T08:48:38.690-07:00Readers can find out more about McGaha by watching...Readers can find out more about McGaha by watching a 2 hour DVD "Are Flying Saucers Real"? He and I had a formal debate with moderator at Middle Tennessee State University, January 24, 2004.We had a packed audience, but no vote was taken at the end. The DVD is available via my website www.stantonfriedman.com .He has also appeared on Larry King several times. His basic rule is "Anything But Alien".<br /><br />Stan FriedmanStanton T. Friedmanhttp://www.stantonfriedman.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-42625126425876416052012-04-22T07:07:28.858-07:002012-04-22T07:07:28.858-07:00Shough is a very tough guy to convince that any UF...Shough is a very tough guy to convince that any UFO case is a good one [therefore he tends to prefer instrument-assisted cases a la radar] but he immediately saw that Nickell's idea was in his terms "bankrupt". Some of the confusion in the case [having in my mind no bearing whatsoever upon the reality of this thing as a very close encounter, but whenever a perceived error of any kind appears in a case description skeptics go nuts and rush to dump the whole affair], has been caused by the initial error of the second policeman [Hunt] as to what direction he was facing. Muscarello and Bertrand knew perfectly well that they were facing north, but Hunt, driving down from the Exeter area to the north, got his head turned around and thought that he was facing south. So, he gave the USAF guy the wrong direction for the object's flyaway. He also apparently told the first newsman [or someone else] he was interviewed by that same wrong direction. By the time he figured it out that cat was long out of the bag. He DID get it right once Ray Fowler got there with his more precision way of investigating. But the error was repeated by John Fuller in his book, and so sat there to boggle people. Again, although it's nice to clear details up, this is not an essential in the Exeter case, as no amount of distant US aircraft can come at you with lights so bright you think you're in danger from them.The Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-57920282737631705112012-04-22T00:32:24.652-07:002012-04-22T00:32:24.652-07:00There’s nothing I could add about the Exeter case ...There’s nothing I could add about the Exeter case that hasn’t already been written. Martin Shough got forensic on a rebuttal recently (updates list) and your own immersion in the case is similarly at odds with the notion of re-fuelling aircraft. <br /> <br />Rather than the Exeter case specifically, it’s the general approach, by some, to UFO reports that can be alarming. Some guys take the condescending view that witnesses are like cartoon housewives screaming at mice from atop a chair. Saturated by media reports of saucers, woefully undereducated and prone to magical thinking, these poor saps see what they want to see. The witnesses need to have their accounts rewritten by ‘those who know better.’ For example, descriptions of large objects in front of them (Damon, Texas) are combinations of Arcturus and helicopters. <br /><br />It seems to me that this approach signifies a low opinion of the intelligence and experience of witnesses. It also suggests an inability to put themselves in another’s shoes. I mean, try and imagine the circumstances whereby a helicopter, Venus or refuelling exercise can be misperceived as a large, silent object passing overhead? It's tough huh? <br /><br />Can they themselves conceive of a situation in which they might duck to avoid Venus? They’d baulk at the notion and attribute it to the lesser folk out there.Kandinskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11598864214791609926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-79337619226485510492012-04-21T15:18:40.567-07:002012-04-21T15:18:40.567-07:00"One of the debunkers heard that the angle of..."One of the debunkers heard that the angle of the Exeter lights was about 60 degrees, and, since this is the angle which the re-fueling hose dangles"<br /><br />Funny that he is willing to consider an eyewitness guesstimate of an angle but discounts the less error prone description of a line of lights. So the eyewitnesses apparently can accurately measure angles of lights in the sky by sight alone but when it comes to judging the behavior and configuration of lights in the sky they turn into Mr. Magoo.Ericnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-17901967911269336252012-04-21T13:56:19.002-07:002012-04-21T13:56:19.002-07:00Excellent work, Professor. These debunkers are so ...Excellent work, Professor. These debunkers are so absurd- they sit there and try to convince people that they aren't every bit as obsessed with--and emotionally invested in-- UFOs as the most credulous Space Brother crystal kisser. How do they do that? By dredging up old cases and doing the old revisionist history bit on them. Why do they care? Why do they bother? No one is discussing Exeter or the Lockheed case or whatever ancient flap these obsessives are still obsessing over so why the hell are they? That's the dead giveaway there.The Secret Sunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09676425268231171924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-52836539607477494312012-04-21T12:55:42.457-07:002012-04-21T12:55:42.457-07:00McGaha has left plenty of unfavorable impressions ...McGaha has left plenty of unfavorable impressions with me. In particular, here's a perfect example of McGaha's distinct brand of negative bias: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx6bKMuIKNE). It really is laughable when he confronts a couple of witnesses of the Phoenix Lights after they insist on having witnessed a single extremely large vehicle. He asks them how they know it wasn't multiple aircraft in formation and when they answer that "they looked up and it blocked out the stars in the sky", he then asks if they are "qualified to look at the sky at night?". I mean how pathetic can one individual be? Are we really supposed to take him as a serious authority?<br /><br />His bio claims that he is the director of the Grassland Observatory which effectively consists a tin shack sporting a rather unimpressive (my emphasis) "24 inch reflector. It also states: "He held a TOP SECRET compartmented security clearance and was involved in numerous classified operations including operations in the so-called "Area 51.", which makes one question his objectivity and wonder if he remains on someone's payroll in order to spew this swill. If so, they sure aren't getting their money's worth, irregardless of his salary. (for bio reference info see http://www.centerforinquiry.net/speakers/mcgaha_james)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-5734960415756589482012-04-21T10:32:36.136-07:002012-04-21T10:32:36.136-07:00I agree with all of the above. It has been the &qu...I agree with all of the above. It has been the "insider" pre-publication discussion of the Exeter alleged solution on Fran Ridge's NICAP site which inspired this blog entry. Sadly, some of the UFOlogists who are part of discussions on that board have been pixy-led by the N&M goofiness and couldn't bring themselves to see VERY simple statements from Ray Fowler's original report forms. Folks, even in UFOlogy Land there are real fraidy cats and also guys-grown-so-old that they are desperately "lookin' for love in all the wrong places".The Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-86894423357639767622012-04-21T10:23:59.354-07:002012-04-21T10:23:59.354-07:00b"h
According to a report at the NICAP.org s...b"h<br /><br />According to a report at the NICAP.org site we have:<br /><br />"Within five minutes, Patrolman Eugene Bertrand pulled into the station. Bertrand, an Air Force veteran during the Korean War, with air-to-air refueling experience on KC-97 tankers, reported an odd coincidence." <br /><br />http://www.nicap.org/muscrepfuller.htm<br /><br />So it seems the "'Exeter Incident' Solved" boys epic-failed on their homework and their claim.<br /><br />http://www.csicop.org/si/show/exeter_incident_solved_a_classic_ufo_case_forty-five_years_cold/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com