On 3 September 1965, Norman Muscarello reported bright red lights near Route 150 at Kensington, south of Exeter, New Hampshire. Patrolman Eugene Bertrand returned with him and reported seeing lights himself; David Hunt joined them later. Their accounts survive in the Air Force investigation and dated civilian questionnaires. Those records make it possible to compare what each man observed, how the descriptions changed and why the proposed aircraft explanation remained disputed.
First reporter; observer before and during the police return
Norman Muscarello
The initial report and return
Muscarello's typed statement places him hitchhiking on Route 150 at about 2 a.m. He describes five red lights in an inclined line, flashing in sequence and moving in a way he compared to a falling leaf. He says they disappeared behind trees or a house and reappeared, and that an apparent approach caused him to jump into a ditch.
He estimated watching for about 15 minutes before obtaining a ride to Exeter police station. His statement explicitly says the lights were too bright for him to distinguish the object's form. Bertrand's account then places Muscarello with him during the return to the field. The solo observation and the later shared observation should be kept distinct.
Evidence review
Seeking police assistance and returning to the location gave the report an immediate follow-up. The officers' later observation adds support for lights in the area, but it cannot independently verify every detail of the earlier solo experience. Muscarello's statement is most useful for the sequence, flashing pattern and his perceived approach; the range and underlying structure require separate evaluation.
Statement and reporting history
The statement is attached to the Pease investigation record. Its typed name and event date should not be confused with an autograph signature or a demonstrated statement-writing date.
Later reconstructions often supply a large craft with a distinct rim. Those details need attribution to the particular later account rather than being inserted into the early statement's description.
Blue Book scans reproduced by NICAP, part 2, PDF pages 1–3. The cleaner reproductions in Schuessler's 2002 compilation, pages 50–52, were also inspected. Typed names do not establish autograph signatures; the statements describe 3 September without giving their writing date.
Part 1, PDF pages 33–36. Major David H. Griffin reports no probable cause and regards the observers as reliable. His reference to five B-47s does not establish a specific flight track matching their observation.
Same file, part 2, PDF pages 4–19. Signatures and dates are on pages 11 and 19; directions, range estimates and sketches differ from parts of the narrative statements. Fowler is identified as the civilian investigator.
Exeter patrolman; reported Air Force refuelling experience
Eugene Bertrand Jr.
The investigating patrolman
Bertrand's statement first describes finding a distressed motorist near the Route 108 bypass at about 1 a.m. He did not himself see the light she reported. At the station he heard Muscarello's account and drove him back to the location. Initially they saw nothing unusual; while walking into the field, Bertrand reported five bright red lights appearing from behind trees.
He described an apparent approach, beginning to draw his gun, then retreating with Muscarello to the cruiser and calling Hunt. He reported animal noise but no sound or vibration from the lights. His statement says their brightness prevented him making out a form; his signed 11 September questionnaire also depicts lights and a halo.
Evidence review
Bertrand's change from investigating a report to making an observation is a consequential part of the record. His later letter cites four years of Air Force refuelling experience, relevant to his comparison with aircraft. That experience gives context to his judgement; its force still depends on the viewing conditions and the details he actually recorded. His account of the motorist remains second-hand evidence of her reported experience.
Statement and reporting history
His questionnaire is signed and dated 11 September 1965. It records the shared sighting separately from his earlier roadside encounter.
In the December correspondence, Bertrand and Hunt defended their police reporting and distinguished a high aircraft they thought was probably a B-47 from the lights. Their letters also strengthen the description of a large, wingless object, which requires comparison with the earlier difficulty seeing its form.
Blue Book scans reproduced by NICAP, part 2, PDF pages 1–3. The cleaner reproductions in Schuessler's 2002 compilation, pages 50–52, were also inspected. Typed names do not establish autograph signatures; the statements describe 3 September without giving their writing date.
Same file, part 2, PDF pages 4–19. Signatures and dates are on pages 11 and 19; directions, range estimates and sketches differ from parts of the narrative statements. Fowler is identified as the civilian investigator.
Part 1, pages 20–21 contain the signed 2 December letter. Schuessler's compilation, page 60, reproduces the signed 28 December follow-up. These are later witness interpretations, including stronger structural claims.
John P. Spaulding's reply, inspected as a scan. The preceding page reproduces his 25 January letter to Fowler explaining the inquiry's aircraft timing and unidentified assessment.
Exeter patrolman; later-arriving observer
David Hunt
The later phase
Hunt's typed statement places Bertrand's call at about 2:55 a.m. He reports bright red lights flashing in sequence over a field, appearing about a quarter mile away to the south-east and moving away in that direction. He estimated their altitude at about 100 feet.
His signed 11 September questionnaire describes two or three red lights, gives a closest-distance estimate of 9,000 feet and sketches east-to-west movement across the northern sky. It estimates five to eight minutes of observation. These are substantial differences in scale and direction, even though both records describe sequential red lights.
Evidence review
Hunt corroborates the later light display rather than the apparent approaches reported before his arrival. The differences between his short statement and questionnaire make his range and bearing unsuitable as fixed inputs for a precise flight reconstruction. Preserving both accounts allows proposed explanations to be tested against the actual uncertainty instead of selecting whichever estimate best fits them.
Statement and reporting history
The questionnaire bears his signature and the date 11 September 1965. Its narrower observation also helps define the extent of the three-person overlap.
Hunt co-signed the officers' December letters and received the February Air Force reply. Those jointly developed interpretations should be distinguished from his own earlier description.
Blue Book scans reproduced by NICAP, part 2, PDF pages 1–3. The cleaner reproductions in Schuessler's 2002 compilation, pages 50–52, were also inspected. Typed names do not establish autograph signatures; the statements describe 3 September without giving their writing date.
Same file, part 2, PDF pages 4–19. Signatures and dates are on pages 11 and 19; directions, range estimates and sketches differ from parts of the narrative statements. Fowler is identified as the civilian investigator.
Part 1, pages 20–21 contain the signed 2 December letter. Schuessler's compilation, page 60, reproduces the signed 28 December follow-up. These are later witness interpretations, including stronger structural claims.
John P. Spaulding's reply, inspected as a scan. The preceding page reproduces his 25 January letter to Fowler explaining the inquiry's aircraft timing and unidentified assessment.
Comparing the evidence
The three accounts support a reported light display with a clear sequence of police involvement. Muscarello's initial experience was his alone. Bertrand then observed with him, and Hunt joined during the later phase. Their agreement carries most weight for the visible lights and their apparent movement during that shared interval. Bertrand had already heard Muscarello's description before entering the field, and the officers later discussed their interpretation. Corroboration therefore needs to be assessed feature by feature, rather than treating three names as three independent records of every part of the encounter.
The early statements place a firm limit on the claim of a clearly observed craft. Muscarello and Bertrand both say the brightness prevented them discerning its form. Bertrand's September questionnaire depicts flashing lights and a halo; Hunt's depicts two or three lights. The officers' December correspondence adds stronger claims about size, illumination and the absence of wings or a tail. These later claims belong in the history of their testimony, but they should not replace the earlier descriptions when assessing how securely a physical structure was observed.
Distance and direction are material uncertainties because aircraft comparisons depend on them. Hunt's typed statement estimates a quarter-mile range and south-easterly departure. His signed questionnaire instead gives 9,000 feet at the closest point, with lights moving from east to west across the northern sky. Bertrand's questionnaire also places the observation in that northern sector. These differences prevent a precise reconstruction from being treated as settled. Apparent proximity, size and altitude remain linked estimates: bright lights near a tree line can appear low without supplying an independent distance measurement.
The military inquiries constrain the Big Blast explanation. A September telephone-inquiry record says the checked routes had no refuelling operations at the relevant time. The Eighth Air Force's November reply lists ten participating B-47s and estimates their arrival at the initial approach fix between 12:44 and 1:35 a.m. local daylight time. That is earlier than Muscarello's reported observation and substantially earlier than the officers' shared sighting. These are recorded inquiry findings, rather than a complete reconstruction of every flight. They nevertheless require any exercise-based explanation to reconcile the timing instead of relying on the general presence of aircraft near Pease.
McGaha and Nickell's 2011 proposal offers a more specific comparison: a KC-97 tanker's director lights, their reflection on its lowered boom and apparent movement during refuelling. Their article identifies a resemblance but supplies no flight record placing that tanker over the witnesses. Shough's response tests the proposal against light-panel geometry, viewing distance and the reported silence, and questions the assumed light sequence. Those tests expose dependencies that a convincing identification must resolve. His alternative suggestion of separate aircraft beacons also requires aircraft at the right place and time.
Exeter's strongest evidence is the early, attributable reporting and the documented effort to test it. The original accounts preserve a striking visual experience, while the forms reveal uncertainty in its scale and path. The Air Force's February reply records that it could not identify what the officers observed. The resulting assessment should remain focused on that unresolved observation: neither an asserted close view nor a visual resemblance to tanker equipment is sufficient on its own to establish the source of the lights.
Key dates
3 September 1965, about 2 a.m.
Muscarello reports his solo observation near Route 150 and travels to Exeter police station.
3 September 1965, later that morning
Bertrand returns with Muscarello. He calls Hunt, whose statement places that call at about 2:55 a.m.; Hunt observes the later phase.
11 September 1965
Bertrand and Hunt sign the civilian questionnaires preserved in the investigation file.
15 September 1965
Pease Air Force Base submits its initial report, including the three statements and Major Griffin's assessment.
2 and 28 December 1965
Bertrand and Hunt dispute the proposed explanations in letters to Project Blue Book and seek an official reply.
9 February 1966
The Air Force tells the officers that the additional information has not enabled identification.
Blue Book scans reproduced by NICAP, part 2, PDF pages 1–3. The cleaner reproductions in Schuessler's 2002 compilation, pages 50–52, were also inspected. Typed names do not establish autograph signatures; the statements describe 3 September without giving their writing date.
Same file, part 2, PDF pages 4–19. Signatures and dates are on pages 11 and 19; directions, range estimates and sketches differ from parts of the narrative statements. Fowler is identified as the civilian investigator.
Part 1, PDF pages 33–36. Major David H. Griffin reports no probable cause and regards the observers as reliable. His reference to five B-47s does not establish a specific flight track matching their observation.
Part 1, page 6 records telephone inquiries made on 28 September; page 23 is the 24 November reply concerning Big Blast. The latter gives estimated arrival at the initial approach fix, not a certified landing time. Its UTC times correspond to local daylight time used in the witness forms.
Part 1, pages 20–21 contain the signed 2 December letter. Schuessler's compilation, page 60, reproduces the signed 28 December follow-up. These are later witness interpretations, including stronger structural claims.
John P. Spaulding's reply, inspected as a scan. The preceding page reproduces his 25 January letter to Fowler explaining the inquiry's aircraft timing and unidentified assessment.
Original Skeptical Inquirer article, pages 16–19. Proposes a KC-97 explanation from equipment and witness-description similarities. It is a retrospective hypothesis, not an operational record of a tanker at Exeter.
Critical analysis of the tanker proposal, including light geometry, distance, sound and inconsistencies in reported directions. Its physical estimates and alternative aircraft suggestion are the author's analysis.