The following is an article from the October '96 (Vol. 4, #10) issue of The
REALL News.  It may be reprinted by other skeptics organizations as long as
proper credit is given. REALL also requests that you please send a copy of 
ny
publication that reprints one of our articles for our files.  This article 
ay
also be cross-posted onto other appropriate conferences.
This article represents the opinions of its author, and does not necessarily
represent the opinions of REALL or its officers.
==============================================================================
                           Exeter File - Part Two
                     The Exeter Terrestrial Hypothesis
                            by Martin Kottmeyer
Before he grew up to be the master theorist who brought a stunning order to
our understanding of the heavens, Isaac Newton first brought chaos. As a
kid he liked to make and experiment with kites. At some point he invented a
crimpled paper lantern, attached it to the tail of a kite, and started
flying it at night. History records this "wonderfully affrighted all the
neighboring inhabitants for some time, and caused not a little discourse on
market days, among country people, when over their mugs of ale." As this
took place in the mid-1600s, speculation included the concern that these
lights were comets. Muses one historian, "By good fortune, Grantham was not
burned to the ground."
This idea, indeed, doesn’t seem like an especially smart thing to do, and
it should surprise nobody that kids a good deal dumber than Newton have
been doing the same thing over the years. A colleague showed me a reprint
of an 1992 kid’s manual called The American Boys Handy Book, which had
chapters on how to make kites of several varieties. One version was called,
"The Moving Star," so named for the paper lantern attached to the tail. To
prevent setting the kite afire, the author recommends a small light wood
and wire hoop frame covered by red tissue paper. A drawing is helpfully
provided. The author adds in comment, "This lantern fastened to the tail of
a large kite that is sent up on a dark night will go bobbing around in a
most eccentric and apparently unaccountable manner, striking with wonder
all observers not in on the secret." (pp. 21-2)
Needless to say, this same thing goes on to the present day. One popular
guide to kites remarks that besides Chinese firecracker kites, "Lighted
kites are also legendary. Japanese lanterns or small battery-powered
flashlights can be put aloft." If you have a night with enough wind. (Wyatt
Brummit, Kites, Golden, 1971, p. 97) Though unmentioned, flares are another
option for modern pranksters. A really inventive fellow might even come up
with something else.
My hypothesis is that the Exeter case is an instance of an upscale
moving-star kite. Five strobe flashers linked to a sequencer are hung along
the kite-line rather than a tail. They are powered from the ground by a
small portable power supply like a motorcycle battery strapped to the body.
A large box kite would probably work best since the double-wing surface
would enable it to carry the weight of the lights more easily than other
types. Meteorologists used to use them to haul up all sorts of recording
equipment.
With this idea in mind, let’s go back to our 6 points from Part 1:
1) Why Exeter? The prankster probably lived there.
2) Why did the Exeter object flutter like a leaf? Because it was made of
cloth and light wood. It was silent because kites are silent. It was
defying most aerodynamic patters, but not those of kites.
3) The practical use of the flashing pattern and the extreme brilliance was
to get the victim’s attention and scare the hell out of him. Additionally,
it was, as the handbook said, an effort to strike wonder into all
observers. The rural setting insured enough darkness to not give the trick
away and to have the room to pull it off without a lot of bystanders who
might see the prankster and squeal on him.
4) The 60-degree angle is due to the lights being on the kiteline. The
prankster probably had no intent to mimic the behavior of a flying saucer.
He just wanted something really strange. This explains why the lower lights
were always forward of the others. One usually is pulling the line back
against the wind. I should perhaps add here that Air Force records confirm
there was a wind out of the West that evening. Some reader of Fuller is
inevitably going to point out that his book says "There was no wind…" that
evening. I don’t know what he based it on, but it appears to be wrong.
5) The reason it doesn’t travel far from the ground is because it is a
kite, not a spaceship.
6) Kitefliers can make their kites dive and have been known to scare
drivers off nearby roads by a sudden stunt maneuver. Someone mischievous
enough to hang strobe lights on a kite likely has the disposition to panic
his victims with low passes. It was not too bright to do this to a cop,
however, and one can well understand why the prankster would not come
forward to claim credit for his spectacle.
With no confession or statements from accomplices or acquaintances, it will
likely be said this solution is unproven. Perhaps, but I have to say that
the extraterrestrial solution is pretty much dis-proven and rendered
foolish. Why opt for a solution that makes no sense when you have one that
does?
And another classic bites it.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
---------------