Hackensack New Jersey Flying Disc Multi-Witness Institutional Case, August 3, 1947 (Army Soldier, Civilian Observers, Military/Civilian Coordination, Discrepancy Analysis)

Summary

On August 3, 1947, at approximately 7:30–7:45 PM, an unidentified flying disc was observed over Hackensack, New Jersey by a multi-witness group: Charles Caselia Jr. (civilian), Private William A. Truex (Army soldier stationed at Fort Dix), and Joyce McFarland (Truex’s girlfriend). The FBI conducted systematic separate interviews (Caselia by SA Arthur F. Williams, Truex by SA T. Howard Waldron, McFarland by SA Williams). Cross-street witnesses (Mr. and Mrs. Booth) were also interviewed but denied seeing the object or anyone pointing it out, creating a documented witness-account discrepancy. The object was described variously as round and black (Caselia), silver-blue and revolving (McFarland), and “like a large flat child’s cup, oval on top, pointed on bottom” (Truex), with estimated diameters ranging from “two to three feet” (Truex) to “six inches” (McFarland from distance) to “thirty to forty inches” (Caselia’s estimate). The case was reported to Hackensack Police Sergeant James Perone but resulted in no further action. No other police departments in the vicinity reported similar objects.

What the Bureau Documents Show

Caselia’s Account (SA Williams Interview)

Caselia stated he was standing with Fort Dix soldier Truex “observing a ‘ham’ radio rig atop a two-story house on Simons Avenue, Hackensack” with the stated purpose of “meeting TRUEX’s girlfriend, one JOYCE Mc FARLAND.” At approximately 7:45 PM:

“CASELIA looked and about a block or a half block away noticed a round, black object moving from south to north and east of the stop where he and TRUEX were standing. CASELIA noticed that it was moving too fast to be an ordinary balloon, but he could not discern whether it was globular in form or a disc. He said it was about thirty to forty inches in diameter moving north in a horizontal plane about two hundred yards above the top of the hill at Summit Avenue and Simons Avenue. It proceeded at a steady rate, emitted no rays, and was moving fast enough to require them to turn their heads steadily in order to follow it.”

Caselia stated the object’s flight path would extend “from the vicinity of Bendix, New Jersey to a point west of Westwood, New Jersey.” He observed a cross-street witness (Booth) pointing out the object to women on a porch. Caselia claimed to be “positive it was no optical illusion” and said “he would have thought nothing of it except for the speed at which it was traveling.”

Critical discrepancy noted by FBI agent: “TRUEX’s girlfriend came out about fifteen seconds after they first sighted it.” Caselia stated McFarland said it “looked like a bird on the horizon so small,” but McFarland’s own interview contradicts this.

McFarland’s Account (SA Williams Interview)

McFarland stated she was in the house when called out and that she saw the object “just before it disappeared over the horizon.” Her observations:

“She saw it just before it disappeared over the horizon, but she declared that it was in view from that time for approximately one minute. She said it was round and silver-blue in color and appeared to be revolving. She said that she did not recall making any comment that it might have been a bird and herself had no idea of what it could be. In view of the distance from which she noticed it, she said that it could not have been more than six inches in diameter but would have been much larger if she had been near to it. Miss Mc FARLAND said that she had never seen anything like it before.”

McFarland also stated: “across the street the BOOTHS, mother and daughter, were the only people sitting on the porch and she, herself, did not notice anyone pointing toward the object in question.”

Explicit contradiction of Caselia’s account: Caselia claimed to have seen a Booth-family member pointing out the object; McFarland stated she did not notice anyone doing this.

Booth Family Interviews (SA Williams)

“Mrs. WINFIELD S. BOOTH, 459 Simons Avenue, stated that she was on the porch on the evening in question with her mother but did not notice any unusual object in the sky nor had any man been present there to point out the object in question.”

Cross-observer discrepancy documented by FBI: The Booths, positioned across the street with clear sightlines, observed nothing despite Caselia’s account of “a man on the porch across the street” pointing out the object.

Truex’s Account (SA T. Howard Waldron Interview)

Truex, a recently enlisted Army private (enlisted May 29, 1947, stationed at Fort Dix), provided the most detailed description. He stated the sighting occurred “at 8:00 p.m.” (contradicting Caselia’s 7:45 PM and McFarland’s 7:30 PM), while standing with Caselia “outside the home of his girlfriend, Miss JOYCE Mc FARLAND, 478 Simons Avenue”:

“He said that he and CASELLA were looking at the radio antenna on a home near the 478 Simons Avenue address when they noticed an object about two to three feet in diameter moving rapidly about two hundred yards off the ground. TRUEX said he thought at first it was a child’s balloon, but when he noticed there was no wind and the object had no strings to it, he decided it was something else. He stated the object was moving in a steady, straight path, going north, and he said there was no exhaust or indication of any motive power for the object. TRUEX said they observed the object for fifteen or twenty seconds. He could not give a description of the object’s color or the material it was composed of but said it looked more like a large, flat child’s cup than anything else he could think of, as the object was oval on the top and came to a point on the bottom side.”

Truex stated that Caselia commented “Maybe it’s a flying saucer” and that “he had never seen anything move through the air quite like this object, and he had no idea where it came from.” He affirmed “that neither he nor CASELLA had had anything to drink, and there was sufficient light for them to observe the object very clearly.”

Descriptive contradiction: Truex described the object as “like a large, flat child’s cup, oval on the top, came to a point on the bottom side,” which contradicts Caselia’s “round, black object” and McFarland’s “round and silver-blue in color and appeared to be revolving.”

Police Report (Hackensack Police Department)

“The ‘Flying Disc’ was reported by CASELLA to Sergeant JAMES PERONE of the Hackensack Police Department. Sergeant PERONE advised the writer that his Department had taken no further action nor had they received reports of the object in question from any other source. It may be noted that no other Police Department in the vicinity has brought to the attention of this Division any information regarding this matter.”

Why This Matters

1. Multi-witness institutional case with systematic separate interviews. FBI conducted separate interviews with three primary witnesses (Caselia, McFarland, Truex) using different Special Agents (Williams, Waldron), creating independent documentation of each account without cross-contamination.

2. Military/civilian coordination at social level. Army soldier (Fort Dix) coordinating with civilian observer (Caselia) at the behest of meeting girlfriend (McFarland). This represents a distinct institutional pattern from police dispatch coordination (Portland) or formal government witness clusters (Jenkins). The coordination is social/personal, not operational.

3. Documented multi-observer discrepancies within a single event. Same object, same time, different accounts:

   • Shape: round/black (Caselia) vs. silver-blue/revolving (McFarland) vs. flat cup with oval top/pointed bottom (Truex)
   • Size: 30-40 inches (Caselia) vs. 6 inches perspective (McFarland) vs. 2-3 feet (Truex)
   • Duration: ~1 minute (McFarland) vs. 15-20 seconds (Truex)
   • Time: 7:45 PM (Caselia) vs. 7:30 PM (McFarland) vs. 8:00 PM (Truex)
   • Cross-street witness observation: Caselia claimed Booth pointing out object; McFarland and Booths deny this occurred.

4. Systematic discrepancy analysis embedded in FBI interview documentation. Agents explicitly noted contradictions (McFarland’s denial of “bird” comment, Booth’s denial of pointing out object, time discrepancies). This suggests careful comparative interviewing methodology.

5. Police report received but no institutional follow-up. Hackensack Police Department received the report but took no action and received no reports from other departments. This establishes a local-police baseline for dismissal/non-escalation.

6. Environmental and temporal specificity. August 3, 1947, 7:30–8:00 PM, Hackensack NJ (Simons Avenue/Summit Avenue intersection), documented wind conditions (noted as absent by Truex), daylight sufficiency affirmed (Truex), flight trajectory across named locations (Bendix to Westwood per Caselia).

7. Credibility markers and disqualifications within witness accounts. Truex’s recent military induction (May 29, 1947, ~2 months prior to sighting), McFarland’s stated disbelief of her own visual interpretation (“had no idea what it could be”), Caselia’s occupational basis for radio observation (present to observe “ham” radio rig suggests technical interest/baseline observational competence).

8. No external corroboration vs. police-radio coordination precedent. Unlike Portland case (dispatch coordination + The Oregonian coverage), Hackensack shows isolated civilian-military observation with no institutional amplification or press pickup.

Connections

• PURSUE full inventory
• portland-police-department-september-1947 — Comparative multi-witness case with institutional coordination (dispatch) vs. social coordination (Fort Dix/girlfriend meeting)
• Entity: Fort Dix
• Concept: Multi-Observer Discrepancy Analysis in Early UAP Cases, 1947

Open Questions

1. Why the time discrepancy across three accounts (7:30 PM, 7:45 PM, 8:00 PM)? Was there confusion about when the sighting began vs. when McFarland came outside? Did the observers have different time references (watches, sunset timing)?

2. What was Truex’s military background and observational training? He enlisted May 29, 1947. Was he infantry or technical specialist? Any prior flight observation duty? His calm assessment (“looked more like a large flat child’s cup”) suggests either training or composure.

3. Why did Caselia claim Booth was pointing out the object when Booth and McFarland both deny this? Was Caselia mistaken about who was present on the porch? Did he confuse the timing (pointed it out at a different moment)?

4. The Bendix/Westwood flight trajectory — verification against geography. Caselia stated object’s course would extend “from the vicinity of Bendix, New Jersey to a point west of Westwood, New Jersey.” Do these locations align with the Simons/Summit Avenue intersection sightline? Possible verification via 1947 maps.

5. McFarland’s hesitation and revisionism — psychological or observational? She stated she “did not recall making any comment that it might have been a bird” directly contradicting Caselia. Was she correcting a misquote, protecting dignity (not wanting to appear foolish), or genuinely uncertain about what she said in the moment?

6. Hackensack Police Department institutional response — why no follow-up? Sergeant Perone received the report but took no action. Did Hackensack Police have any standing orders regarding flying disc reports in August 1947? Was this typical non-escalation, or specific dismissal guidance?

7. Army Signal Corps or technical observer protocols — Truex’s baseline training. Fort Dix soldiers on weekend leave—were there any observation or security protocols active in August 1947 that might have informed Truex’s calm assessment and absence/no-strings observation?

8. Cross-street vantage point analysis — why Booths saw nothing. Booths had clear sightline across Simons Avenue. If the object was “two hundred yards” altitude and moving north, would Booths’ porch position have had obstruction (trees, house eaves, angle of sight)?

Quotes Worth Keeping

“CASELIA noticed that it was moving too fast to be an ordinary balloon, but he could not discern whether it was globular in form or a disc. He said it was about thirty to forty inches in diameter moving north in a horizontal plane about two hundred yards above the top of the hill at Summit Avenue and Simons Avenue. It proceeded at a steady rate, emitted no rays, and was moving fast enough to require them to turn their heads steadily in order to follow it.” — Charles Caselia Jr., August 3, 1947, FBI SA Arthur F. Williams interview. Section 2 page 4.

“She said it was round and silver-blue in color and appeared to be revolving. She said that she did not recall making any comment that it might have been a bird and herself had no idea of what it could be.” — Joyce McFarland, August 3, 1947, directly contradicting Caselia’s account of her “bird” comment. FBI SA Arthur F. Williams interview. Section 2 page 6.

“TRUEX said he thought at first it was a child’s balloon, but when he noticed there was no wind and the object had no strings to it, he decided it was something else. He stated the object was moving in a steady, straight path, going north, and he said there was no exhaust or indication of any motive power for the object. TRUEX said they observed the object for fifteen or twenty seconds. He could not give a description of the object’s color or the material it was composed of but said it looked more like a large, flat child’s cup than anything else he could think of, as the object was oval on the top and came to a point on the bottom side.” — Private William A. Truex, Fort Dix, August 3, 1947, most detailed descriptive account. FBI SA T. Howard Waldron interview. Section 2 page 7.

“Mrs. WINFIELD S. BOOTH, 459 Simons Avenue, stated that she was on the porch on the evening in question with her mother but did not notice any unusual object in the sky nor had any man been present there to point out the object in question.” — Mrs. Winfield S. Booth, August 3, 1947, directly contradicting Caselia’s account of cross-street pointing. FBI SA Arthur F. Williams interview. Section 2 page 6.

“The ‘Flying Disc’ was reported by CASELLA to Sergeant JAMES PERONE of the Hackensack Police Department. Sergeant PERONE advised the writer that his Department had taken no further action nor had they received reports of the object in question from any other source. It may be noted that no other Police Department in the vicinity has brought to the attention of this Division any information regarding this matter.” — FBI SAC Newark memo, August 13, 1947. Section 2 page 7. Establishes institutional non-escalation at local police level.