UFO Conjectures

Monday, December 01, 2014

The Muscarello/Exeter UFO Sighting of 1965

In September 1965, Norman Muscarello saw (or thought he saw) a UFO (depicted above).

What is interesting to me is the locale (not far from the 1961 Hill episode) and preliminary to the 1966 Ann Arbor-Dexter/Hillsdale "swamp gas" sightings. (Mr. Muscarello's sighting was near a swampy area.)

The sighting is recounted here:


And is (supposedly) explained here:


Did Mr. Muscarello and the police officers on scene misperceive a refueling military plane or did he (and the police) experience a craft similar to the one Betty and Barney Hill allegedly saw (and were abducted by)?

And did Mr. Muscarello get a preemptive look at an thing that Frank Mannor saw near Ann Arbor and some Hillsdale College co-eds saw few months later.

Or was the sighting a whole matter of mis-identified normality, as the skeptics Jim McGaha and Joe Nickell contend?

The ufological problem, as always, lies in the obvious: the matter has not been nailed down one way or another, just as the Ann Arbor/Dexter/Hillsdale sightings have never been explained, swamp gas aside, nor have the 1966 Wanaque sightings, with similar aspects, been explained.



  • McGaha and Nickell accept that the witness and police officer accurately describe the sequencing of lights and, thus, they are able to "solve" the sighting as an Air Force refueling operation. But they completely ignore all of the rest of the witness comments which, presumably, are just as accurate! There was a "pool" of bright red light from the object. Ignored. The object had a "halo" effect light around it which made it impossible to see the actual object. Ignored. The object was no more than 80 to 100 feet away. Ignored. A third officer arrived and they watched the object maneuver for about 5 to 10 minutes. Ignored. The object moved like no conventional airplane, accelerating a stopping and often "rocking". (Ever see a conventional plane "rock"?) Ignored. And all three witnesses heard NOTHING, NADA, SILENCE. Ignored...to say the least. Gee, I can solve any unknown sighting if you let me "explain" one effect but then allow me to ignore dozens of others which blatently contradict my first explanation! Nonsense on stilts.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Monday, December 01, 2014  

  • Yes, Dominick, the skeptical "explanation" is wanting (as usual).


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, December 01, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home