The following is a letter to the editor from the December '96 (Vol. 4, #12) 
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 any publication that reprints one of our articles for our files.  
This article may 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.
==============================================================================
Dear Editor,
Armchair observations and commentary are all well and fine.
Without same, I'd be virtually out of a job myself! Still,
the armchair can only be rocked so far before it arrives,
creaky and decrepit, somewhat short of its original intended
destination. Specifically, I refer to Martin Kottmeyer's two-
part "explanation" of the Exeter, New Hampshire, UFO case,
which recently appeared in The REALL News, and which
attributes same to a human hoax-something along the lines of
a Boy Scout-launched balloon or kite.
Snicker, snicker, my aren't we superior.
The problem with such a facile dismissal of the case is
pointed out in the two paragraphs which follow (originally
addressed to Mr. Kottmeyer in person):
Exeter as a neighborhood balloon or kite? Mayhaps. But if a
ground-controller were in charge of things, wouldn't the 60-
degree angle change dramaticallyon at least those occasions
when the kite was being purposefully and actively maneuvered
from below? Release tension on the top of the trail, in
other words, and the whole would tend to go upright or
perpendicular, wouldn't it? Similarly, jerk on the top, and
wouldn't the whole tend to go parallel with the horizon? You
can't have it both ways. Either the slant was constant or it
wasn't. If constant, then that doesn't sound like a balloon
or kite jerking about in the wind to me, unless you (or
Isaac Newton) can come up with some way to configure a
constant 60-degree angle kite tail. (In fact, this is a
theory you could have easily tried out in your own back yard
before floating it in print.)
Alternatively, are you also seriously suggesting that
someone ran two copper wires from a battery on the ground to
the kite in order to power the onboard lights? Then how long
would such wires have had to have been for the whole to
disappear out of sight? (For that matter, wouldn't two such
wires occasionally twist in the wind and short out?) I know
from personal experience (a Yamaha 750) that even motorcycle
batteries are inordinately heavy for their size, as in lead
balloon/kite, which is why you postulate a ground-based
battery yourself. Maybe you should shoot for four AAs? But
if light bulbs were involved, then highway flares probably
weren't-unless you know some way to make flares (and/or
candles) go on and off in sequence? On the other hand, if
mere light bulbs were employed, then how do you explain the
illumination that allegedly lit up the ground and caused the
poor hoaxees (read: ignorant fools) to dive for cover?
Pretty bright bulbs, even at a hundred feet in height! You'd
think hoaxers everywhere would be using them by now, almost
on a nightly basis, that Edmund Scientific would be carrying
them as UFO Hoax Lights-Cheaper by the Dozen!
Close, but no Cuban cigar. Note that I didn't claim that
Exeter was de facto extraterrestrial in nature. My remarks
are simply addressed to Mr. Kottmeyer's own equally
implausible "solution." Obviously, I don't mind him noting
that the Exeter object behaved erratically on one hand
(i.e., bobbing about like a balloon or a kite); what I
object to is Mr. Kottmeyer wanting to have his cake and eat
it, too, specifically by citing the 60-degree angle
consistency in his favor. So which is it, Martin? Was the
reported object consistent in flight or not? You can't argue
both ways simultaneously. Unless your armchair is bigger
than mine-and I live in Texas, where Suburbans are the state
car.
Sincerely,
Dennis Stacy
Editor
MUFON UFO Journal
dstacy@texas.net
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
---------------