UFO UpDates Mailing List

Incident at Exeter, Pt. 2 of 2 (Hynek).repost

After reading Hynek's analysis of the case, one can
click on the title above for more information re Exeter,
especially THIS
. NewFlashRed-Yellow

If you're looking for part 1: Click Here

From: "Jerry Cohen" <rjcohen@li.net>
Web Site: CohenUFO.net
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 22:53:03 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 11:26:41 -0500 
Subject: Incident at Exeter, Pt. 2 of 2 (Hynek).repost

As mentioned in part one, the following excerpt is taken

Hynek, J. Allen . "The Hynek UFO Report" . paperback, pp
154-166 . Dell Publishing Co. 1977 : and also, material
therein from Blue Book files.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"Incident at Exeter" - continued (part 2 of 2) 

Dr. Hynek:    It is interesting to note that Maj. Quintanilla
had used the term "before a final evaluation of your sighting
can be made," whereas the Pentagon had in fact already issued
its evaluation (attributing the sighting to Operation Big
Blast) some time before Quintanilla wrote his letter.

     Maj. Quintanilla received a prompt reply from Officers
Bertrand and Hunt. Their letter of December 2, 1965, reads:

"Dear Sir:
    We were very glad to get your letter during the third
week in November, because as you might imagine, we have been
the subject of considerable ridicule since the Pentagon
released its "final evaluation" of our sighting of September
3, 1965. In other words, both Patrolman Hunt and myself saw
this object at close range, checked it out with each other,
confirmed and reconfirmed the fact that this was not any kind
of conventional aircraft, that it was at an altitude of not
more than a couple of hundred feet and went to considerable
trouble to confirm that the weather was clear, there was no
wind, no chance of weather inversion, and that what we were
seeing was in no way a military or civilian craft. We entered
this in a complete official police report as a supplement to
the blotter of the morning of September 3rd (not September 2
as your letter indicates).

    Since our job depends on accuracy and the ability to tell
the difference between fact and fiction, we were naturally
disturbed by the Pentagon report issued which attributed the
sighting to "multiple high-altitude objects in area" and
"weather inversion." What is a little difficult to understand
is the fact that your letter arrived considerably after the
Pentagon release. Since your letter says that you are still
in the process of making a final evaluation, it seems that
there is an inconsistency here. Ordinarily, this would not be
too important except for the fact that in a situation like
this, we are naturally very reluctant to be considered
irresponsible in our official report to the police station.
One of us (Patrolman Bertrand) was in the Air Force for four
years, engaged in refueling operations, with all kinds of
military aircraft; it was impossible to mistake what we saw
for any kind of military operation, regardless of altitude.
It was also definitely not a helicopter or balloon.
Immediately after the object disappeared, we did see what
probably was a B-47 at high altitudes, but it bore no
relation to the object that we saw.

    Another fact is that the time of our observation was
nearly an hour after two A.M. which would eliminate the Air
Force Operation Big Blast since as you say, this took place
between midnight and 2 A.M. Norman Muscarello, who first
reported this object before we went to the site, saw it
somewhere in the vicinity of 2 A.M. but nearly an hour had
passed before he got to the police station and we went out to
the location with him.

    We would both appreciate it very much if you would help
us eliminate the possible conclusion that some people have
made in that we might have: (a) made up the story, (b) were
incompetent observers.  Anything that you could do along this
line would be very much appreciated, and I am sure that you
can understand the position we are in.

    We appreciate the problem that the Air Force must have
with the number of irresponsible reports on this subject, and
don't want to cause you unnecessary trouble. One the other
hand, we think that you probably understand our position.
Thanks very much for your interest.

                                  Patrolman Eugene Bertrand
                                  and Patrolman David Hunt

Dr. Hynek:  They received no reply to this letter. They wrote
again on December 29:

Dear Sir:
    Since we have not heard from you since our letter of
December 2, we are writing this to request some kind of an
answer since we are still upset about what happened after the
Pentagon released its news that we had just seen stars or
planets, or high-altitude air exercises.

    As we mentioned in our last letter to you, it could not
have been the Operation Big Blast you mentioned since the
time of our sighting was an hour after that exercise and it
may not have even been the same date since you refer to our
sighting as September 2. Our sighting was on September 3. In
addition, as we mentioned, we are both familiar with all the
B-47's and B-52's and helicopters and jet fighters which are
going over this place all the time. On top of this, Patrolman
Bertrand had four years of refueling experience in the Air
Force and knows regular aircraft of all kinds. It is
important to remember that this craft that we saw was not
more than one hundred feet in the air and it was absolutely
silent with no rush of air from jets or chopper blades
whatever. And it did not have any wings or tail. It lit up
the entire field, and two nearby houses turned completely
red. It stopped, hovered, and turned on a dime.

    What bothers us most is that many people are thinking
that we were either lying or not intelligent enough to tell
the difference between what we saw and something ordinary.
Three other people saw this same thing on September 3 and two
of them appear to be in shock from it. This was absolutely
not a case of mistaken identity.

    We both feel that it is very important for our jobs and
our reputations to get some kind of letter from you to say
that story put out by the Pentagon was not true; it could not
possibly be because we were the people who saw this, not the

    Can you please let us hear from you as soon as possible?

                                  Patrolman Eugene Bertrand
                                  and Patrolman David Hunt

Dr. Hynek:  More than a month later, the patrolmen received
the following response from the Office of the Secretary of
the Air Force:

    Based on additional information submitted to our UFO
Investigation Officer, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, we have
been unable to identify the object that you observed on
September 3, 1965. In nineteen years of investigating over
ten thousand reports of unidentified flying objects, the
evidence has proved almost conclusively that reported aerial
phenomena have been either objects created or set aloft by
men, generated by atmospheric conditions, or caused by
celestial bodies or the residue of meteoric activity.

    Thank you for reporting your observation to the Air
Force, and for your subsequent co-operation concerning the
report. I regret any inconvenience you may have suffered as a

                                        John P. Spaulding
                                        Lt. Col, USAF

Dr. Hynek:  Whether this letter satisfied the patrolmen, I do
not know. Between the lines, it still says "It can't be,
therefore it isn't" and that therefore their sighting must
undoubtedly have some natural explanation. At least, however,
the patrolmen had the satisfaction of the final admission
from the Pentagon that they had been unable to identify their

Jerry Cohen

E-mail:  rjcohen@li.net

P.S.    To those who never read his book, author John Fuller came up
with about 60 witnesses to low altitude sightings in the Exeter area
in this general time period.

Again, his book:

       Fuller, John G. "Incident at Exeter" . A Berkley Medallion
Book . Pub. G.P. Putnam's Sons Distributed by Berkley Publishing
Corporation . paperback 1/67

Click here for more information regarding the Exeter sightings.

Page from the website of: CohenUFO.org

UFO UpDates - Toronto - updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304

 A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.


  Page last updated: January 29, 2015 4:55 PM