Exeter

What the file holds

Project Blue Book’s papers on the case are one unit in the National Archives catalogue, “Exeter, New Hampshire, September 1965” (NAID 302543878, 131 images). Among them:

• the record card (image 1) and an undated summary (images 25–26);
• the Air Force’s report from Pease AFB of 15 September 1965, whose four pages lie in reverse order (images 103, 102, 101 and 100), with the three witnesses’ statements (images 97–99) and the weather diagrams attached to it (images 111–119);
• Blue Book’s letters and memoranda from October 1965 to March 1966, the Eighth Air Force’s answer on “Big Blast” and a teletype message from Pease (images 2–24);
• two letters from the police officers (images 8–9 and 11);
• material sent in by NICAP, a private organisation, among it a summary sheet of 15 September 1965 (images 55–56) and the Saturday Review of 2 October 1965 (image 48);
• press clippings, among them the Manchester Union Leader of 6 September 1965 (image 80);
• reports of other sightings in New England in 1965 and 1966, many of them sent to Pease AFB (for example images 29–47).

Blue Book’s index lists the case on image 353 of NAID 28921348.

The night of 3 September, in the statements

The report of 15 September was submitted “in accordance with AFR 200-2” (image 103) with three statements made for the Air Force. In the order of the night:

• Patrolman Bertrand, 0100. “I, Eugene F. Bertrand Jr., was cruising on the morning of the 3rd of September at 0100 on Rte. 108 by-pass near Exeter N.H.” He found a woman in a parked car: “She stated a light had been following her and had stopped over her car.” He stayed “about 15 minutes but was unable to see anything.” (image 99)
• The civilian, 0200. He was hitchhiking, his statement says, “on Rte. 150, 3 miles South West of Exeter N.H. at 0200 hours on the 3rd of September.” Five red lights in a line “were pulsating 1,2,3,4,5,5,4,3,2,1”, they were “so bright I could not distinguish any form to the object”, and at one point “they seemed to come so close I jumped into a ditch to keep from being hit.” He watched them “for about 15 minutes” and then “caught a ride to the Exeter Police Station” (image 97).
• Bertrand and the civilian, in the field. Bertrand drove him back: “When we had gone about 50 ft a group of five bright red lights came from behind a group of trees near us.” Then: “At one time they came so close I fell to the ground and started to draw my gun.” He could not see a shape: “The lights were so bright I was unable to make out any form.” And: “There was no sound or vibration but the farm animals were upset in the area and making a lot of noise.” (image 99)
• Patrolman Hunt, about 0255. “I, David R. Hunt, at about 0255 on the morning of the 3rd of September, received a call from Patrolman Bertrand to report to an area about 3 miles South West of Exeter, N.H.” He saw “a group of bright red lights flashing in sequence”, which “appeared to be about ½ mile over a field to the South East.” After “a short period of time” they moved off to the south-east; he estimated their height at “about 100 ft” (image 98).

The report itself describes the object as “(1) Round. (2) Baseball. (3) Bright red. (4) Five red lights in a row.” at “an altitude of approximately 100 ft” (image 103), and gives the duration as “One hour.” (image 102). The weather: “The weather was clear with no known weather phenomenon. There was a 5 degree inversion from surface to 5000 ft.” (image 101)

Its investigating officer, Maj. David H. Griffin, wrote: “At this time have been unable to arrive at a probable cause of this sighting.” He had walked the place: “I viewed the area of the sighting and found nothing in the area that could be the probable cause.” Of the base’s bombers: “Pease AFB had 5 B-47 aircraft flying in the area during this period but do not believe they had any connection with this sighting.” (image 100)

Big Blast and the times

Blue Book’s first explanation came in a letter to Pease stamped 19 October 1965: “Preliminary analysis by personnel at our organization indicated a possible refueling operation.” Two refuelling areas, it had been told, were “closed for operation from 03/0500Z to 03/0600Z for an Eighth Air Force operation ‘Big Blast’”. The letter concludes: “It is our belief that aircraft from this operation and various stars and planets were the causes of the various reports on the night of 2 - 3 September from this area.” (image 2) TSgt David Moody’s calls had found that “no refueling operations were conducted on the nights of 2-3 Sep and 6 Sep.” (image 21); Blue Book dates that check to 28 September 1965 (image 18).

In November Blue Book asked the Eighth Air Force for “the specific types of aircraft used in this operation and possible location of these aircraft at the time of the report”, giving the time as “03/0500 to 0600 Zebra” and the night, by a slip, as “2-3 August 1965” (image 4). The answer of 24 November 1965: “By 03/0430Z, the operational portion of the mission was complete and participating aircraft were enroute to their home stations.” Ten B-47s from Pease “were estimated to arrive at their initial approach fix (Pease TACAN 320° Radial, 10 DME fix), between 03/0444Z and 03/0535Z”, and “The town of Exeter is within the traffic pattern utilized by Air Traffic Control in the recovery of these aircraft at Pease AFB, N.H.” (image 6)

In local time, as Blue Book’s summary gives it, those aircraft “were in the traffic pattern over Exeter between 0044 and 0135” (image 26). The hitchhiker puts his sighting at 0200, which the report records as “03/09/0600Z” (image 102), and Hunt was called at about 0255 (image 98). By the same reckoning the refuelling areas were closed from 0100 to 0200 local time (our conversion).

The letters, in order

• Quintanilla to the two officers, undated. “Our investigation and evaluation of this sighting indicates a possible association with an 8th Air Force operation, ‘Big Blast.’” He asked whether they had seen any aircraft, and drew the line at 2 a.m.: “we might then assume that the objects observed between midnight and 2 A. M. might be associated with this military air operation.” The letter dates the sighting to “the night of 2 September” (image 7).
• The officers, 2 December 1965. They had been “the subject of considerable ridicule since the Pentagon released its ‘final evaluation’ of our sighting of September 3, 1965.” The Pentagon report, they wrote, “attributed the sighting to ‘multiple high altitude objects’ in the area and ‘weather inversion.’” Of the time: “Another fact is that the time of our observation was nearly an hour after 2:00 AM, which would eliminate the 8th Air Force operation Big Blast, since as you say this took place between midnight and 2:00 AM.” They had seen a bomber afterwards: “Immediately after the object disappeared, we did see what probably was a B-47 at high altitude, but it bore no relation at all to the object we saw.” (image 9) They asked Blue Book to help them against the conclusion “that we might have A) made up the story, or B) were incompetent observers.” (image 8)
• The officers, 28 December 1965. “As we mentioned in our letter to you, it could not have been the operation ‘Big Blast’ you mention, since the time of our sighting was nearly an hour after that exercise, and it may not even have been the same date, since you refer to our sighting as September 2.” The object “was not more than 100 feet in the air, and it was absolutely silent” (image 11); on 2 December they had written “not more than a couple of hundred feet” (image 9).
• Blue Book to the Office of Information, 11 January 1966. “Since this information conflicted with the time of the sighting and eliminated these aircraft as a possible evaluation of this incident, a letter was forwarded to Mr. [blacked out] and Mr. [blacked out] requesting clarification of the time of the sighting.” Then: “The earlier sightings of two unnamed women and those of Mr [blacked out] are attributed to aircraft from operation Big Blast ‘Coco.’” And: “The subsequent observation by Officers Bertrand and Russel [sic] occurring after 2 A. M. are regarded as UNIDENTIFIED.” (image 13) The statements name the second officer David R. Hunt (image 98); whether the man whose name is blacked out here is the hitchhiker, the memorandum does not say.
• The Office of Information, 9 February 1966, in a letter whose addressees are blacked out: “Based on the additional information you submitted to our UFO investigation office at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, we have been unable to identify the object you observed on September 3, 1965.” (image 16)
• Blue Book to RADC, 3 March 1966. “The major portion of the sighting occurred subsequent to two a.m.” (image 18) Blue Book still allowed an aircraft: “Analysis of the report indicates that it is possible for aircraft of a conventional type with rotating beacons or aircraft utilizing infra-red lights in photographic missions to have been the cause of this sighting.” And: “Since we have been unable at this time to identify a specific aircraft as the cause of the sighting, the case is regarded for statistical purposes as unidentified.” (image 17)

Between the last two, after a call prompted by J. Allen Hynek (image 18), Pease reported that “NO PILOT REPORTS CONCERNING UNUSUAL SIGHTINGS WERE MADE BY CREWS LANDING DURING PERIOD IN QUESTION.” (image 20)

The Pentagon release that the officers argued with is not in the file. It is known only from their letters, which quote it as “multiple high altitude objects” and “weather inversion” (image 9) and sum it up as “stars or planets, or high altitude air exercises” (image 11). Nor is the police report in the file: the officers wrote that they had entered the sighting “in a complete official police report as a supplement to the blotter of the morning of September 3” (image 9).

Were the witnesses independent?

The three statements do not describe three independent observations. The civilian reported to the police station (image 97); Bertrand drove him back to the field and saw the lights with him; Hunt arrived on a call: “I radioed Patrolman David Hunt who arrived in a few minutes.” (image 99) Hunt saw the lights at “about ½ mile” and for “a short period of time” (image 98). The woman on Route 108 is known only from Bertrand’s statement (image 99), and Blue Book’s memorandum of 11 January 1966 puts the sightings of “two unnamed women” down to “Big Blast” (image 13).

What the file gives instead is the investigating officer’s judgement, “The three observers seem to be stable reliable persons, especially the two patrolman.” (image 100), and of the civilian: “Appears to be reliable.” (image 102)

What the press and NICAP added

• The Manchester Union Leader, 6 September 1965. The clipping names the hitchhiker as “Norman J. Muscarello, 18”. It says the object was “about the [s]ize of a house” and that “the men observed the object for 15 or 20 minutes at what appeared to be a relatively short distance.” (image 80; letters in square brackets are cut off at the edge of the scan)
• NICAP. Raymond E. Fowler, its investigator, sent Blue Book a report dated 15 September 1965 (images 55–56). Its background note: “We [w]alked several miles along some power lines near to the sighting area examining this area for any signs of a UFO landing.” It goes on: “We feel that the UFO might have [b]een attracted to this area by these power lines.” And: “We found nothing.” (image 55) No paper of the Air Force mentions power lines.
• The Saturday Review, 2 October 1965, with an article by John G. Fuller, came to Blue Book through NICAP (image 48). Of Fuller’s articles Blue Book wrote: “The article is essentially factual, however, it is apparent that poetic license and a flair for the sensational has been incorporated into the articles.” (image 17)

What the file says about its label

The record card concludes “UNIDENTIFIED” and adds: “There were aircraft in the area of the sighting between 03/0444Z and 03/0535Z on OPERATION ‘BIG BLAST.’” (image 1) Blue Book’s index has the case as “UNIDENTIFIED (3 Witnesse”, the last word cut off at the edge of the scan (NAID 28921348, image 353).

What the same files say:

• The summary. “These aircraft were in the traffic pattern over Exeter between 0044 and 0135, which does not correspond to the time of the observation.” And: “Since no aircraft can be placed in the area at 0200 hours the case is listed as unidentified by the Air Force.” (image 26)
• 11 January 1966. The observation after 2 a.m. is “regarded as UNIDENTIFIED” (image 13).
• 3 March 1966. The label holds “for statistical purposes”, and: “There is a total lack of evidence to indicate that the sighting could not have been caused by conventional aircraft.” (image 17)
• 9 March 1966. Of the other reports from the area: “The reason that reports were not submitted on sightings other than the Exeter, New Hampshire case of Bertrand, Hunt and [blacked out] was that they were identified on the spot.” (image 24)

The label rests on the times: no aircraft could be placed over Exeter after 2 a.m. The files measured nothing. The card marks “PHOTOS” and “PHYSICAL EVIDENCE” as “No” (image 1), and no radar observed the lights, so the case keeps the status unresolved and does not carry the mark ◆.

Where it was

The report has “3 N.M. South West of Exeter, N.H.” (image 102), the civilian “Rte. 150, 3 miles South West of Exeter N.H.” (image 97), and Hunt “an area about 3 miles South West of Exeter, N.H.” (image 98). NICAP’s covering note of 3 October 1965 heads its addendum “Kensington, New Hampshire - 9/3/65” (image 57). No document gives coordinates, and the report counts the distance in nautical miles where the statements count statute miles, so we did not compute a point. The pin is OpenStreetMap’s point for Exeter (relation 339435, 42.9815° N, 70.9478° W), rounded to 42.98° N, 70.95° W. It marks the town, not the place of the sighting.

Why this scores where it does

Witnesses: 4. Three first-hand statements taken within twelve days, two of them by police officers; the investigating officer judged the three “stable reliable persons, especially the two patrolman” (image 100). Not 5: they did not observe independently, Hunt saw the lights briefly and from about half a mile (image 98), and the woman on Route 108 is known only through Bertrand.

Radar: 0. None.

Optics: 0. No photograph; the card marks “PHOTOS” as “No” (image 1).

Physical trace: 0. The card marks “PHYSICAL EVIDENCE” as “No” (image 1), and the investigating officer “found nothing in the area that could be the probable cause” (image 100).

Multi-channel: 1. One group of witnesses at one place, and accounts only.

Documentation: 4. The card, the report with three statements, the Eighth Air Force’s data, the letters in both directions, the memoranda, the teletype and the summary can all be opened. Not 5: the Pentagon release and the police report, the two documents the dispute turns on, are not in the file, and the papers give the night as 2 or 3 September and the duration as fifteen minutes, one hour or two hours.

Anomaly: 3. Silent red lights at an estimated 100 feet for an hour or more after 2 a.m., when Blue Book could place no aircraft over Exeter (image 26). Nothing measured them.

Data today: 2. Only the accounts remain. The positions of the B-47s for 0500 to 0600Z, which Moody asked for (image 21), are not in the file, and the place of the sighting was never fixed.

The overall is 1.6: class D, testimony only.

What would settle it

• The Pentagon release of autumn 1965, known only from the officers’ letters (images 9 and 11).
• The Exeter police report entered “as a supplement to the blotter of the morning of September 3” (image 9).
• An account from the woman on Route 108 (image 99), and from the “two unnamed women” of Blue Book’s memorandum (image 13).
• The positions of the B-47s for 0500 to 0600Z, which Moody asked the 99th Bomb Wing at Westover AFB for (image 21).