Exeter, NH UFO incident

Dean

Adept Dabbler
Okay, I went through the thread to which you referred me, and thank you. Your observations are of interest to me, and a useful addendum to the book. I do not doubt that various planes made formation flights in the region for whatever purposes, some aspects of which Imbrogno discussed at length in the book.

When UFO reports in a region reach public news media, a lot of noise is generated -- many people who don't ordinarily look at the sky start looking, and they are amazed to see various bright objects, some of which move about -- prosaic things (planets, stars, airplanes) that they could have seen before, but they were not looking. Then too, once a flap is underway, it is not uncommon for a certain type of person to take the opportunity to show how clever they are by engaging in hoax activity that will produce more bogus reports. I don't know whether there was genuine anomalous activity that preceded the noise in Hudson Valley, or that continued simultaneously, nor time or inclination to try to sort all that out.

I am just zeroing in specifically on the events recited in the chapter of Night Siege (Second Edition) titled "The Encounter at Indian Point," which I summarized above. If in fact three nuclear security officers, or twelve, reported (among other observations) an object hovering directly over the nuclear reactor, for 10 minutes, with various other details about the object blocking out objects behind and so forth, it is not readily apparent to me how that is squared with a plane formation in the distance. So is the theory that Imbrogno fabricated the interviews with these nuclear-plant security officers? Or if the interviews are deemed authentic, is the theory that real officers made the detailed statements attributed to them, but that these guys could not distinguish between distant planes and what they perceived as a huge and stationary object immobile, directly over the facility they were tasked to guard?

A third possibility, that the security officers made such statements but were fabricating them for fun, seems most implausible, given the sensitive nature of their employment.
 
Last edited:
I may be missing something, but the particular incident that started this thread was only one of a number investigated on the spot by Fuller. I no longer have his book, but there were multiple sightings including some at an air base, and a report of an interceptor seen chasing a UFO. And there were many reports of UFOs seen near power lines, shortly before the great power failure.. coincidence maybe. It was a mini wave and can't be dismissed because the famous (because police officers were involved) incident might be explicable. I picked up on one comment above that other phenomena occur in the Exeter area -- to me that is something worth following up.
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
I am just zeroing in specifically on the events recited in the chapter of Night Siege (Second Edition) titled "The Encounter at Indian Point,"

OK. I have that book - it's Chapter 11. I haven't read that book in some time but I'll go through the chapter and post afterward.

As I've said, I've been to Indian Point. Using the term 'nuclear security officer' carries implications which sound very authoritative, but if you were with me when I went there you might question the term. In fact there were many areas of that facility where the security was no different than any office building. This was many years before 9/11.
 

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
I don't know what the hell they saw but pointing out that the records of the era might be less than perfect and that there actually were any number of military aircraft in and around the area at the time is just common sense, not knee-jerk 'debunking' . I live in an area much like that and can tell you that I have seen some things that got my attention and had me staring at the sky for a few minutes until I was able to discern what I was looking at.

Nobody has 'solved' anything only repackaged what's been around for years. The links to the actual documents were cool. One statement about the patrolman having been part of an aerial refueling team in his military service and therefore couldn't have been mistaken reminded me of the more current Morristown, NJ absolutely identified hoax that had 'expert testimony' from all sorts of people on TV making very, very similar statements. It was balloons with flares and the stupid kids admitted it and were fined for it.

I prefer to believe it has a completely prosaic explanation because eyewitness testimony is usually questionable at best. Certainly these three nitwits were already front loaded for something strange when they went out into the field in the first place and the one patrolman saw something that scared him enough to grab his weapon. I didn't find the case to be overly compelling. Again, I've read all the nonsense about the Hudson Valley sightings and actually saw the f****ng thing myself and know how these things gain momentum on their own.

All that said, we weren't there and don't know what they saw and lacking any real evidence never will. It's much more statistically probable that they were mistaken for whatever reason - but I never say never and think its healthy to leave some room for doubt if there isn't some blatantly obvious explanation.
just the fact that the sightings happened in a know hotspot, makes me think they weren't planes, some people reported things wich were definitely something else
 

Creepy Green Light

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius
just the fact that the sightings happened in a know hotspot, makes me think they weren't planes, some people reported things wich were definitely something else
And like I pointed out earlier; in broad daylight people reported a P-3 colliding with another plane as well as people in parachutes floating to the ground - which neither thing happened. So if they can't get a daylight terrestrial object incident right - I don't expect them to get a lights-in-the-sky-at-night story right.
 

Dean

Adept Dabbler
CGL -- In this area as in others, human witnesses vary extremely in their degree of objectivity and competence. In analyzing an ambiguous or disputed event, this is one of the key factors that a competent investigator or other inquirer must assess. May I safely assume that you would not favor legislation under which no person could be convicted of a serious crime except on the basis of a high-def video recording of the felony in progress?
 

Creepy Green Light

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius
CGL -- In this area as in others, human witnesses vary extremely in their degree of objectivity and competence. In analyzing an ambiguous or disputed event, this is one of the key factors that a competent investigator or other inquirer must assess. May I safely assume that you would not favor legislation under which no person could be convicted of a serious crime except on the basis of a high-def video recording of the felony in progress?
No because that's apples and oranges. If someone is claiming they were raped or money was stolen out of their home (or name any other example you can think of) - it's all stuff that has happened before and we know is possible. Up until now, we can't say for sure that flying saucers exist because there is no proof of one. Once it is established without a shadow of a doubt that they exist, then you can start listening to other peoples accounts more seriously because you know it's possible & that they exist. Just like the Loch Ness Monster - can we all agree that there is no such thing and it doesn't exist? Yet what has happened for decades upon decades? People keep submitting their (bogus) eyewitness accounts. For something that doesn't yet exist - you need extraordinary proof. It'd be like people reporting that they keep seeing leprechauns. Not the same as somebody reporting squirrels in their backyard as we all knows that squirrels exist and we've all seen them.
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
Haven't read Chapter 11 yet so I'll reserve comment on that. But in the meantime consider this.

just the fact that the sightings happened in a know hotspot, makes me think they weren't planes,

A hot spot indeed: why exactly? I've lived here my entire life, am well aware of Pine Bush and all that. Been to Indian Point in Buchanan many times - inside the facilities. Regularly pass it on my routine travels. In fact, two of my neighbors have worked there for decades and when I see them I'll try and bring all that up to see what they have to say. I work with the facilities manager of one of the local airports that these idiots took off from and I have asked him about it and he was under no illusions that it was anything other than what I have stated. I've been to these places many times - have any of you?

With that in mind if I had come on this forum I could state with equal truth that I was a lifelong resident of the Hudson Valley and a direct eyewitness to the famous object. I suspect that if I was saying that it was something totally anomalous it would be far more readily accepted here than to say it was just small planes. There's a litmus test you might want to hold yourself up to when considering objectivity. If you want to believe eyewitness testimony you should at least give equal credence to one who is telling you something which maybe isn't what you wanted to hear.

From my p.o.v to say that in addition to the known small planes that something else happened at the same time is a bit like saying that never mind the water tower you've been shooting at, there really are Martians around here somewhere. As I've said before, that's rooting around in the cat box convinced that somewhere there will be a sand covered yet delicious Zagnut.

So, rather that totally hijack this thread, if it's about the Hudson Valley stuff let's move it over to that thread. I'll check out that chapter and respond over there.
 

Dean

Adept Dabbler
Okay, pigfarmer, see you over there. As previously indicated, my primary interest is in the purported experiences of the security officers at Indian Point nuclear plant. However, I would also be a little interested in what you think would possess a group of small-plane pilots to begin flying around in a formation at night -- not the safest practice, I think (hence, "idiots") -- if they didn't get the idea by reading about local UFO reports, and then deciding to see if they could stir up some headlines. If that was in fact the genesis, then you can't logically use such "copy cat" hoax activity to dismiss all other reports.

CGL, I think your post is a variation of the doctrine that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," which I find to be a slippery notion. All too often, what is deemed to be an "extraordinary" claim is any claim that is disruptive to the currently orthodox paradigm (about whatever), and what constitutes "extraordinary evidence" is defined by a priori assumptions on how nature should behave. The "extraordinary evidence" doctrine seems to me to be a form of circular reasoning. See the attached quote from the classic work by philosopher and historian of science Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a book that I heartily recommend to anyone with an interest in phenomena that do not fit tidily into currently orthodox paradigms.

I have not delved specifically into the question of leprechauns, so I can't speak to that.
 

Attachments

  • Thomas S. Kuhn response to crisis quote.png
    Thomas S. Kuhn response to crisis quote.png
    59.5 KB · Views: 106
Last edited:

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
And like I pointed out earlier; in broad daylight people reported a P-3 colliding with another plane as well as people in parachutes floating to the ground - which neither thing happened. So if they can't get a daylight terrestrial object incident right - I don't expect them to get a lights-in-the-sky-at-night story right.
but at least someone would get it right, and knowing how many people saw a solid object its interesting to ponder the possibility
 

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
Haven't read Chapter 11 yet so I'll reserve comment on that. But in the meantime consider this.



A hot spot indeed: why exactly? I've lived here my entire life, am well aware of Pine Bush and all that. Been to Indian Point in Buchanan many times - inside the facilities. Regularly pass it on my routine travels. In fact, two of my neighbors have worked there for decades and when I see them I'll try and bring all that up to see what they have to say. I work with the facilities manager of one of the local airports that these idiots took off from and I have asked him about it and he was under no illusions that it was anything other than what I have stated. I've been to these places many times - have any of you?

With that in mind if I had come on this forum I could state with equal truth that I was a lifelong resident of the Hudson Valley and a direct eyewitness to the famous object. I suspect that if I was saying that it was something totally anomalous it would be far more readily accepted here than to say it was just small planes. There's a litmus test you might want to hold yourself up to when considering objectivity. If you want to believe eyewitness testimony you should at least give equal credence to one who is telling you something which maybe isn't what you wanted to hear.

From my p.o.v to say that in addition to the known small planes that something else happened at the same time is a bit like saying that never mind the water tower you've been shooting at, there really are Martians around here somewhere. As I've said before, that's rooting around in the cat box convinced that somewhere there will be a sand covered yet delicious Zagnut.

So, rather that totally hijack this thread, if it's about the Hudson Valley stuff let's move it over to that thread. I'll check out that chapter and respond over there.
some jokers did decide to fly planes in formation after the original sighting (this is probally what you saw) but i think we can all agree that there was at least one UFO there before
 
Okay, pigfarmer, see you over there. As previously indicated, my primary interest is in the purported experiences of the security officers at Indian Point nuclear plant. However, I would also be a little interested in what you think would possess a group of small-plane pilots to begin flying around in a formation at night -- not the safest practice, I think (hence, "idiots") -- if they didn't get the idea by reading about local UFO reports, and then deciding to see if they could stir up some headlines. If that was in fact the genesis, then you can't logically use such "copy cat" hoax activity to dismiss all other reports.

CGL, I think your post is a variation of the doctrine that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," which I find to be a slippery notion. All too often, what is deemed to be an "extraordinary" claim is any claim that is disruptive to the currently orthodox paradigm (about whatever), and what constitutes "extraordinary evidence" is defined by a priori assumptions on how nature should behave. The "extraordinary evidence" doctrine seems to me to be a form of circular reasoning. See the attached quote from the classic work by philosopher and historian of science Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a book that I heartily recommend to anyone with an interest in phenomena that do not fit tidily into currently orthodox paradigms.

I have not delved specifically into the question of leprechauns, so I can't speak to that.
I agree totally about Carl Sagan's slogan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If you subject it to a basic logical positivist analysis it falls apart. It is an entirely subjective way of dismissing awkward data. Kuhn's book is brilliant, he was arguably the most clear-thinking philosopher of science (another one I foolishly disposed of decades ago!) I have been drafting a short article about this but need to figure out a neat way of organising it.
 

Creepy Green Light

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius
some jokers did decide to fly planes in formation after the original sighting (this is probally what you saw) but i think we can all agree that there was at least one UFO there before
Nope. Unless you mean UFO by the true definition and not a flying saucer.
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
Nope. Unless you mean UFO by the true definition and not a flying saucer.

Been bleary, sick, bored so probably lots of typos.

Imagine if I said I lived in Exeter my entire life and at least knew of the people involved, the terrain and so forth.
If I came here and affirmed what they claimed, whether I really saw it or not (because there would be no way to know if I were being truthful) then I have no doubt whatsoever that some would add my story wholeheartedly to the version of events they prefer. "Life long resident confirms sighting !!"

Imagine if I said I lived in Exeter my entire life and at least knew of the people involved, the terrain and so forth.
If I came here and claimed it was a big balloon with lights that I launched and all my neighbors knew it and maybe the local paper had published several articles about it, and what's more I could point to one of the people making UFO reports as someone who later turned out to be a fraud, well then, I guess I am mistaken and somewhere in all the fakery a real alien craft must have decided to take the time to examine cow flops out in the field, sniff power lines for unknown reasons, etc. Zagnut in the cat box.

We hear what we want to hear. I understand that knee-jerk dismissal is a problem as much as gullibility. I keep an open mind but having been fooled in the past I have learned from it.
 
Top