CENAP Newsflash - No 15-2

Magazine Overview

Title: CENAP-Newsflash
Issue: Nr. 15-2
Date: November 2005
Publisher: CENAP
Country: Germany
Language: German

This issue of CENAP-Newsflash, a German-language, non-commercial UFO journal, focuses heavily on the theme of deception, lies, and hoaxes within the field of ufology. It argues that the prevalence of fabricated stories and manipulative tactics poses a significant challenge to genuine UFO research and the pursuit of truth.

Deception and the UFO Phenomenon

The editorial content emphasizes that deception is an inherent part of human interaction and is particularly rampant in areas like ufology, which often deal with the unknown and sensational. The publication posits that many UFO reports are not genuine sightings but rather deliberate fabrications or misidentifications. It critiques the tendency for some UFO enthusiasts to create elaborate stories to 'prove' their beliefs, sometimes even attempting to deceive seasoned investigators or skeptics.

The article highlights the psychological aspects of lying and how it can be used to achieve personal goals or to manipulate others. It suggests that the 'bluff society' we live in encourages such behavior, where appearances and persuasive rhetoric can overshadow factual accuracy. The authors express concern that this environment makes it difficult to discern truth from falsehood, especially when sensationalism is prioritized over rigorous investigation.

Case Studies of Hoaxes

Two specific examples of UFO hoaxes are detailed:

• The 1947 Black River Falls Incident: Bob Huntley, in 1947, created a realistic-looking flying saucer from sign board, balsa wood, and old engine parts. He staged its 'crash' near a local football field to generate excitement. The local newspaper, the 'Roswell Daily Record', published an extra edition about the 'discovery', and the object was even tested in a wind tunnel at the University of Minnesota. This was presented as a prank that succeeded in fooling the media and public.
• The 1954 Coniston Photograph: Stephen Darbishire, at the age of 14, created a hoax photograph of a flying saucer in England. The media's intense interest and the subsequent sensation caused the story to spiral out of control. Darbishire, now 63, has come forward to admit the deception, explaining that he lacked the courage to reveal the truth at the time.

The Role of Skepticism and Critical Analysis

The publication strongly advocates for a skeptical approach in UFO research. It argues that while some UFO reports may remain unexplained, it is crucial to critically examine all evidence and to be aware of the potential for deliberate deception. The article points out that even skeptics acknowledge a small percentage of unexplained cases, but this does not validate all claims of UFO sightings. It criticizes the tendency of some UFO fans to dismiss skepticism outright or to label skeptics as 'idiots'.

CENAP-Newsflash suggests that UFO researchers must be vigilant and prepared for 'tricksters' and 'con artists' who may use fabricated stories to manipulate the field. The publication also touches upon the idea that 'lies can create space' or preserve certain freedoms, implying that deception can sometimes serve a purpose, albeit a manipulative one.

Challenges in UFOlogy

The issue discusses the inherent difficulties in UFO research, including the challenge of separating 'chaff from wheat' (spurious from genuine information). It notes that the speculative nature of ufology and the desire for sensational 'breakthroughs' can lead to the presentation of 'fool's gold' as authentic evidence. The article also touches upon the concept of 'verbal violence' and how UFO enthusiasts might use disinformation to strengthen their community or belief system.

Conclusion

CENAP-Newsflash concludes that the UFO field is fraught with deception and that researchers must maintain a high level of critical thinking and awareness. It stresses that while the pursuit of truth is paramount, the landscape is littered with deliberate falsehoods, making the work of a UFO investigator a constant battle against manipulation and sensationalism. The publication encourages a pragmatic approach, urging researchers to question everything and to be wary of easy answers or sensational claims.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue strongly emphasizes themes of deception, hoaxes, skepticism, critical analysis, and the challenges of discerning truth in ufology. The editorial stance is clearly skeptical and critical, advocating for rigorous investigation and a cautious approach to UFO reports. It positions CENAP as an organization dedicated to uncovering the truth, even when faced with deliberate misinformation and sensationalism within the UFO community and the media.

This issue of CENAP Newsflash, Nr.15/2, dated November 2005, is a German-language publication from CENAP, focusing on a critical examination of the UFO phenomenon. The magazine adopts a skeptical stance, questioning the validity of many UFO reports and the methodologies employed by most UFO researchers.

The American Government and UFOs

The issue begins by addressing the perception that the American government knows more about UFOs than it reveals, and that these objects are extraterrestrial spacecraft. It suggests that initial military concerns about UFOs being a threat from behind the Iron Curtain were quickly dismissed, leading to a superficial interest in the topic. The sensational nature of UFO theories made them a "kitsch factor," lacking "final proof." While some individuals gained exposure by promoting these theories, the overall interest remained mild. The author contends that government and military officials did not consider UFOs a significant issue, contrary to what some ufologists might suggest for self-preservation.

The 'Alien-Visitor' Myth and UFOlogy

The magazine delves into the "myth of the 'Alien-Besucher,'" portraying it as a moral or ideological construct for proponents. It argues against the idea of extraterrestrial spaceships, suggesting instead a "ufological infiltration" of reality by "immigrants of ufology" who act as "conviction offenders." These individuals, the author claims, will always deny anything other than "the truth," using lies as a tool to spread rumors and achieve their goals. This perspective is seen as a form of "ideological warfare" where some act as "wrecking balls" to dismantle global skepticism through nonsensical claims.

Questioning UFO Witnesses and Researchers

A central question posed is whether seemingly harmless UFO reporters are actually "covert 'UFOlogy party members.'" The author believes that many so-called "falsifiers" are traitors to UFO research, intentionally spreading "stink bombs" and "pies" to mislead the public and revel in the confusion of "helpless experts" when faced with "unexplained cases." The idea that a lack of a "quick explanation" can be intriguing is also noted.

Motivation and the Rosenberg Analogy

The article draws a parallel between the motivations of some UFO proponents and the actions of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who betrayed the Manhattan Project due to ideological convictions. The author highlights how their denial of facts, despite convincing evidence, divided public opinion. This analogy is used to illustrate how strong convictions can lead individuals to extreme actions, even to the point of self-deception or deception of others.

The Nature of UFO Evidence and 'Close Encounters'

The text questions the reliability of UFO evidence, suggesting that many "serious-sounding" reports lack quality and that the phenomenon is often filtered through human perception, leading to errors. It criticizes the ufological tradition that equates more witnesses with better proof, arguing that "real" UFO cases tend to be isolated events. "Close Encounter" incidents, despite their spectacular nature, are deemed less interesting due to their isolated character. The author points out that mass sightings are often easier to explain as misidentifications because they involve multiple independent and objective accounts.

Case Studies and Debunking

The issue presents several case studies to illustrate the points made:

• The 1978 Northern Europe Event: Thousands witnessed a spectacular light phenomenon, later identified as the re-entry of a Russian rocket stage.
• The 1966 Williamette Pass Photo: A famous flying saucer photo was revealed to be a distorted street sign.
• The 1956 Lakenheath/Bentwaters Incident: This classic case involved radar contacts and visual sightings. However, the author suggests that the Venom pilots involved did not see a UFO, but rather a stationary target that was too high to reach, and that the story was exaggerated over time.
• The 1980 Alan Godfrey Case: A police officer reported seeing a strange machine and experiencing a time lapse. The author notes that the "abduction story" was later developed under hypnosis and that the "victim" became comfortable in his role.
• The 1964 Jim Templeton "Alien" Photo: A photo taken by a fireman appeared to show an alien figure in the background, which was only noticed after the prints were developed. The author suggests this was likely a prank or a misinterpretation.

Principles of UFO Research

The article references Jenny Randles' advice, emphasizing the need to "dig deep" and not accept every witness statement as fact. It reiterates the importance of assuming a case is explainable and viewing each investigation as a challenge. The author also highlights the work of Phil Klass and Jenny Randles in developing principles for UFO research, including the need to explain 90-95% of sightings as conventional objects (IFOs) and to be wary of cases with numerous witnesses, as these are often easier to explain.

The Role of Media and Misinformation

The publication criticizes how UFOs are often handled by media and TV producers, who shape the narrative according to their own sensationalist agendas. It argues that the "agenda setting" in this field is no longer in the hands of upright researchers, and that UFOs have been "forcibly expropriated" as a research object. Loud UFO propagandists are seen as undermining knowledgeable skeptics.

The "Business-Thinker" Approach to UFOlogy

The issue suggests that a "business-thinker" approach, emphasizing rationality, realism, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths, is needed in UFO research. It advocates for a strategic approach that focuses on integrity, passion, clarity, and learning, rather than relying on simplistic statistics or databases. The author notes that the UFO topic should not be taken too seriously, as it is a niche subject.

Conclusion

The magazine concludes by urging readers to approach UFO phenomena with critical thinking and to question sensational claims. It emphasizes that "fake photos" are more damaging to media credibility than lies in text, as they represent deliberate deception. The core message is that while sightings of unidentified flying objects may exist, their interpretation is where skepticism becomes crucial, and that a market for "scientifically presented myths" will persist as long as people remain gullible.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are skepticism towards UFO phenomena and researchers, the prevalence of misinformation and hoaxes in the field, the importance of critical analysis and rational investigation, and the critique of sensationalism in UFO reporting. The editorial stance is clearly that of a critical debunker, advocating for a scientific and evidence-based approach to UFO studies, while exposing what the authors perceive as the flaws, biases, and deceptions within mainstream ufology.

This issue of CENAP Newsflash, dated November 2005, delves into a critical examination of the field of ufology, questioning its scientific rigor, research methodologies, and the credibility of its proponents and organizations. The publication appears to be a German-language news bulletin focused on UFO phenomena, with this particular issue taking a skeptical and analytical stance.

Critique of UFOlogy and Research Methodology

The articles express significant dissatisfaction with the current state of UFO research, particularly highlighting a perceived lack of progress and a tendency to cling to outdated ideas. The author contrasts the business world's drive for continuous improvement with the stagnation observed in ufology, where many proponents are seen as 'guardians of the status quo' rather than forward-thinking researchers. The integration of UFO research into mainstream science is acknowledged as difficult, even for skeptics, and the absence of significant breakthroughs is noted.

A key criticism is directed at the way some UFO organizations, specifically MUFON-CES, approach evidence. The author describes a method of using 'scientific citation' with extensive internal bibliographies to create an illusion of academic rigor, which can obscure complex issues and blend fact with fiction. This approach is seen as deceptive to those who accept it as 'scientifically true.' The evidence for alien UFOs is deemed 'unclear,' and personal belief is insufficient; verifiable proof is demanded.

The issue distinguishes between 'fantastic phenomena' and 'fantastic narratives,' arguing that the absence of a definitive 'UFO Case X' means the field is still grappling with basic issues. Experienced investigators are described as both 'assessors and judges,' learning from mistakes. The process of evaluating a report involves assessing whether it is an IFO (Identified Flying Object) or UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) report, with ignorance and lack of knowledge being significant dangers. Empirical knowledge and self-taught expertise are considered essential, along with an understanding of witness credibility.

Case Studies and Critiques

The article discusses the 'UFO Case X' not as a priority event but as a point for detailed analysis and reflection. The 'Mexico UFO Fleet' case from early 2004 is cited as an example of a situation where initial appearances were misleading. The author asserts that after nearly six decades, absolute certainty about UFOs remains elusive.

UFO phenomenon research is characterized as an insecure area, not a 'safety zone.' The author doubts that all protagonists understand this, pointing to MUFON-CES's belief in having an 'assured factual basis' for their cases, making them unwilling to discuss them further. This is problematic because, upon closer examination of individual cases, IFOs are frequently identified. This leads to a problem with the 'prefects of UFO science,' whose lack of consensus and failure to establish fundamental values contribute to ufological chaos.

The author criticizes the 'unconcern' of ufological 'neo-conservatives' within MUFON-CES, suggesting they live in a fantasy world detached from reality. They are accused of constantly generating new ideas to avoid polarization, masking a crisis that is being downplayed. The concept of a 'grand coalition' is dismissed due to the need for extensive negotiation. Pseudo-arguments are invented, and the repetition of themes over decades without progress is highlighted, with ufology being described as 'parascientific' and lacking development.

MUFON-CES and the 'Plauen Incident'

A significant portion of the analysis focuses on MUFON-CES and its handling of cases. The issue references Illobrand von Ludwiger's book 'Unidentified Flying Objects over Europe' and Jacques Vallée's assessment of him as a 'prejudice-free scientist.' However, the author questions this, noting that the book's title might be a publisher's correction, as the author himself uses 'unidentified' to mean 'unidentified' in a broader sense. The ARD UFO reportage 'UFOs: And They Exist' from 1994 is mentioned as an event that led many people to share UFO stories with scientists.

The 'Fehrenbach case' is cited as an example of scientists being deceived by two individuals using a toy to create the illusion of a large metal object. The author stresses that the purpose of UFO research should be to uncover such deceptions. The ease with which UFOlogy can be infiltrated by pranksters and falsifiers is noted, with recurring patterns of fantastic stories and photos that do not lead to fantastic phenomena.

The 'Plauen UFO incident' from May 21, 1994, is detailed. A woman reported seeing circular lights, followed by a large object appearing before her balcony. The object was described as interacting with a tree, emitting lights, and resembling a flying saucer with illuminated windows. Another woman, who was friends with the first observer, also witnessed it, and the police were called. The report claims that other witnesses also reported the sighting, and newspapers attributed it to disco spotlights on clouds. The author expresses disbelief, noting that this incident was not reported by CENAP or GEP at the time and only became known five years later through a book. A subsequent survey by MUFON-CES in Plauen yielded no results.

The author questions the validity of the Plauen newspaper report, stating that their own archive search found no such article. The story is characterized as an exaggeration, possibly based on a skytracker phenomenon but embellished with fantasy elements. The inability of 'UFO witnesses' to comprehend simple explanations and their tendency to add further embellishments is criticized.

The 'Stryker Brigade' and Ufological Defense

The issue advocates for a skeptical approach, likening it to a 'Stryker Brigade' tasked with uncovering the truth and protecting UFO research itself. This involves maintaining a healthy distance from reports, especially those that lean towards 'usual IFO sauce' or popular science fiction elements. The author criticizes the tendency within the UFO community to defend not only cases but also their reporters, a practice that has historically led to problems for ufology.

The author emphasizes the need for grounded skepticism and expertise to counter the 'sowing of confusion and doubt' by ufologists. The current situation is described as a 'new reality' that must be faced, especially in a time of declining public interest in UFOs, where many 'ufological generals' are unwilling to admit the challenges.

The Nature of UFO Phenomena and Belief

The article suggests that the UFO phenomenon is not a simple matter but involves complex psychological and social dynamics. The author notes that while rational understanding of symbols can be secularized, emotional responses are not. This emotional attachment to beliefs, even when rationally debunked, continues to influence thinking.

The 'Mega-Massive "Flying Triangle" over Styria' case is presented as an example of a seemingly inexplicable event that is isolated. Such reports, often from the fringes of the IFO mainstream, are seen as 'operational disruptions.' The author points out that the time lag between an event and its reporting can lead to transformations in the narrative due to external influences. The descriptions often align with parameters of known IFOs, but the temporal distance hinders investigation.

The author also addresses the 'UFO priests' and the need to confront them. While discussion is encouraged, a point must be reached where clear distinctions are made. The risk of falling for 'UFO decoys' designed to promote UFO mystification is real. The article warns against accepting information from informants without critical verification, especially when they might have hidden motives.

Conclusion and Editorial Stance

The publication adopts a strongly critical and skeptical stance towards much of the UFO research and community. It advocates for rigorous methodology, evidence-based analysis, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths, even if it means challenging deeply held beliefs. The author positions themselves and like-minded individuals as a necessary force for critical inquiry within the field, aiming to separate genuine phenomena from misinterpretations, hoaxes, and ideological biases. The underlying message is that ufology, to gain any semblance of scientific credibility, must embrace critical self-examination and a more objective approach to evidence.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critique of ufological methodology, the importance of skepticism, the analysis of specific UFO cases (such as Plauen and Mexico), and the critical examination of UFO organizations like MUFON-CES. The editorial stance is clearly one of critical skepticism, advocating for a more scientific and evidence-based approach to the study of UFO phenomena, while simultaneously challenging the established narratives and practices within the UFO community.

This issue of CENAP Newsflash, dated November 2005, focuses on a critical and skeptical examination of UFO phenomena, emphasizing the need for rigorous investigation and caution against unfounded enthusiasm. The publication advocates for a 'hard line' in UFO research, suggesting that excessive skepticism is preferable to uncritical acceptance.

Market Collapse and the Nature of UFOlogy

The issue begins by referencing Bob Girard of 'Arcturus Books' who lamented a 'total collapse' in the UFO literature market, with loyal UFOlogists hesitant to purchase books and Girard fearing he might have to close his business. The article posits that the UFO field has become a 'cosmic-comic culture of storytelling,' where 'heroes' are storytellers who create 'bizarre modern fairy tales' that offer an escape from a mundane reality. This is contrasted with the need for a more grounded, less philosophical approach to UFO research.

The Austrian Triangular UFO Sighting

A significant portion of the issue is dedicated to a detailed account of a UFO sighting that occurred in May 1990 near St.Josef, Steiermark, Austria. The witness, who was hiking with a friend, described a large, blue-green triangular object with grid lines and white lights that appeared in the sky. The object was described as having no discernible perspective distortion and moved slowly in a circular motion before disappearing. The witness recounts how the experience, initially forgotten, resurfaced years later with the popularity of shows like 'The X-Files.' The witness also mentions a subsequent encounter with a Viennese UFO researcher who obtained his phone number from an 'Andreas Schmidt' from Germany, an interaction the witness found suspicious.

Skepticism and Witness Credibility

The author expresses considerable skepticism regarding the Austrian sighting, suggesting it might be an 'idealtypical UFO encounter' embellished with creative elements, possibly influenced by popular culture like the films 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' and 'ID4.' The author also notes the unusual circumstances surrounding the reporting of the sighting, including the delay in reporting and the placement of images on a website titled 'The Lie.' The article questions the witness's claim of being sober and not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and points to a 'mild paranoid episode' the witness experienced later, raising questions about the reliability of the account.

Critique of UFOlogy and 'UFOlogists'

The publication strongly criticizes the broader UFOlogy community, labeling many involved as 'storytellers' and 'charlatans' who create illusions rather than pursuing factual research. The author argues that UFOlogists often resist critical examination of their beliefs and resort to 'ad hominem' attacks when confronted with evidence that challenges their narratives. The article suggests that the UFO field is plagued by 'lies and hoaxes' and that many UFOlogists are more interested in maintaining their belief systems than in objective truth.

Personal Experiences and Paranoia

The author shares personal experiences that seem to fuel their skepticism, including instances of being followed by unidentified cars and receiving anonymous calls. While acknowledging that these events might not be directly related to the UFO sighting, the author notes the temporal overlap with the Viennese UFO researcher's contact, adding to a sense of unease.

Methodological Approach

The article emphasizes the importance of a systematic approach to UFO investigation, stating that the goal is to achieve progress for oneself, not to please witnesses or promote a particular narrative. The author asserts that the investigation of UFO phenomena requires a willingness to speak plainly and to confront uncomfortable truths, even if they are not palatable to the public or other UFO promoters. The publication distinguishes itself by claiming independence from various interests and ideologies that often permeate UFO discussions.

Conclusion

Ultimately, CENAP Newsflash adopts a stance of rigorous skepticism, urging readers to approach UFO claims with caution and to prioritize evidence-based analysis. The issue highlights the challenges in distinguishing genuine phenomena from elaborate hoaxes, psychological factors, and the influence of popular culture within the UFO field.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are skepticism towards UFO claims, a critical analysis of ufology as a field, the importance of witness credibility, and the influence of media and popular culture on UFO perceptions. The editorial stance is clearly one of promoting critical thinking and a scientific approach, actively challenging what the publication views as unsubstantiated beliefs and 'storytelling' within the UFO community. The publication positions itself as an independent investigator focused on uncovering facts rather than catering to the desires of UFO enthusiasts.

This issue of CENAP Newsflash, dated November 2005, delves into the complexities of UFO investigation, with a strong emphasis on the need for scientific skepticism and rational analysis. The publication critiques the prevailing attitudes within the ufological community, highlighting how emotional biases and personal belief systems can often overshadow objective evidence.

The Investigator's Stance: Skepticism and Rationality

The lead article stresses that investigators should not become architects of UFO reality but rather critical observers. It warns against the irrationality of prioritizing one's own belief system over the experiences of others and advocates for a deep dive into witness accounts to understand their experiences rather than immediately accepting them as fact. The author suggests that adhering to these principles can help to dispel the illusions within ufology and break through years of ufological conditioning, promoting a more realistic and rational approach.

Critique of UFOlogy and Skepticism

The text addresses the common perception of skeptics within ufology, quoting a critique that labels a skeptical response to a report as an 'affront' and 'unbelievable insolence.' The author of the critique suggests that non-classifiable sightings are often dismissed by UFO researchers with the attitude of 'what the farmer doesn't know, he doesn't eat.' The critique expresses frustration at being treated arrogantly and implies that such attitudes from UFO organizations lead to the field being perceived as unserious, potentially deterring future witnesses from coming forward.

The author of the Newsflash article counters this by stating that Werner Walter (presumably the author of the critique) was not accused of 'lying' or being 'not quite right in the head,' as the critique implies. Instead, it's suggested that Walter himself alluded to psychological problems, which further undermines his credibility. The article posits that CENAP, despite its potential for being disliked, has become an established, organizing force within the German UFO field, and that attempts to undermine it are akin to 'ufological attacks.'

Case Study: The Werner Walter Incident

The issue details an incident involving a user named Werner Walter, who allegedly submitted a report. The author of the Newsflash article recounts how Walter was accused of lying and being 'not quite right in the head,' which Walter denies. The article suggests that Walter's own statements about psychological issues make him less credible. It also highlights a discrepancy between Walter's earlier statements in the CENAP guestbook and his later claims, suggesting a 'wütenden Hassreaktion' (furious hate reaction).

The Role of Belief and Ideology in UFOlogy

A significant portion of the text explores the underlying motivations and ideologies within the UFO field. It argues that for many, UFOlogy serves to reinforce pre-existing worldviews, providing a sense of validation for their beliefs. The concept of 'openness' in ufology is critiqued as a demand for accepting unverified claims without critical thought, often masking a form of 'neo-liberalism' that prioritizes utopian ideals over critical thinking. This is seen as a way to avoid confronting uncomfortable truths or challenging established paradigms.

The article criticizes the tendency to simplify complex issues with 'pseudo-solutions' and 'silly solutions,' often stemming from logical fallacies or a desire to avoid conflict. It suggests that this approach leads to a distorted understanding of reality and an 'ufological inner world environmental protection' that avoids genuine criticism.

The 'Energy Supply' of the UFO Field and Monopolies

The text discusses the concept of 'ufological energy supply' and the existence of 'monopoly structures' within the UFO field. It suggests that these dependencies, often unexamined, prevent genuine growth and that the fear of 'disenchantment' leads to a resistance to new ideas, particularly from those who demand 'openness' to unorthodox ideas. This is framed as a threat to a cherished 'revealed religion' of belief.

The Adele Holzer Case: A Detailed Examination

A substantial part of the issue is dedicated to the case of Adele Holzer, who reported seeing a UFO on December 12, 1978. The account details her sighting of a white, glowing disc-shaped object that moved erratically, descended to a low altitude, and displayed lights and three half-spheres. Holzer reported feeling a telepathic message from the object, conveying a message of peace and a warning against self-destruction. The article notes that Hesemann received a bent key from Holzer, which she claimed was affected during the sighting.

The article also delves into Holzer's background, noting her involvement in a local 'Astro-Group' and her later transformation into a UFO contactee. It questions the reliability of her account, suggesting that her prior involvement in esoteric groups and her later public persona as a contactee might influence her testimony. The case is compared to other sightings in the region and linked to a wave of UFO sightings reported around that time.

Historical Context and Other Sightings

The issue references other UFO sightings and related events, including reports from Burghausen in the late 1970s, which were later attributed to teenagers using hot air balloons. It also mentions a sighting reported by a ski lodge owner near Hochries and a dentist's account of a UFO. The article touches upon the difficulty of obtaining verifiable evidence and the tendency for some UFOlogists to promote unverified claims.

The Nature of UFO Evidence and Skepticism

The article concludes by reiterating that such case presentations are not sufficient to provide scientifically accepted proof of an authentic UFO phenomenon. It emphasizes that the search for truth in ufology is ongoing but requires a rigorous, evidence-based approach. The author contrasts the 'real Marxism' with a 'neo-liberal UFOlogy,' suggesting that the latter is a superficial construct. The article also touches on the 'funky stuff' that originates from the more radical and fundamentalist elements within the UFO community.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue of CENAP Newsflash consistently promotes a stance of critical inquiry and scientific skepticism towards UFO phenomena. It argues for a rational, evidence-based approach, cautioning against emotional biases and the uncritical acceptance of claims. The editorial stance is clearly in favor of objective investigation and highlights the challenges posed by the prevailing attitudes and methodologies within much of the ufological community. The publication seems to position itself as a voice of reason and critical analysis within a field often characterized by speculation and belief.

This issue of CENAP Newsflash, dated November 2005, delves into the complexities and conflicts within the UFO research community, particularly highlighting instances of alleged hoaxes, misinterpretations, and the clash between skeptical and credulous viewpoints. The publication focuses on critical analysis and aims to debunk unsubstantiated claims.

Case Study: Frau Holzer's 'UFO' Photograph

The lead story details an incident involving a Frau Holzer, who presented a photograph taken from a TV screen as evidence of a UFO. The object in the photograph was identified as a model of a Russian Venus probe. Frau Holzer, however, insisted it resembled the Starship Enterprise and claimed to have photographed it herself over Ruhpolding in the past. The article notes that she is a repeat witness, having allegedly photographed a UFO in Ruhpolding around 1975, though that image was also unclear and described as 'very green'. The photograph was enhanced by Klaus Webner, revealing it to be a model. Despite the evidence, Frau Holzer reportedly rationalized that the object could still be a model, but one that resembled the Enterprise. The article also touches upon another sighting from December 12, 1978, which is identified as the planet Venus, a white glowing disc seen just above the horizon. The author criticizes the witness for not mentioning Venus, despite claiming astronomical knowledge and stating there were no other unusual celestial objects visible.

The issue draws a parallel between these cases and the broader tendency for unusual sightings to fuel fantasies, citing Erich von Däniken's view that "stimulating fantasy is what counts." A quote from I. von Ludwiger (MUFON-CES-Bericht Nr.9, 1983) is presented, suggesting that UFO witnesses' personalities can change significantly over time, leading them to be perceived as 'spinners' or 'frauds', a phenomenon allegedly observed frequently.

Critique of MUFON-CES and 'Scientific UFOlogy'

The magazine strongly criticizes the approach of MUFON-CES representatives, who are described as viewing their cases as 'base data' that are not open to discussion. The author contrasts this with his own experiences, where witnesses are more open to scrutiny. The article questions the methodology of MUFON-CES, particularly their claim that 90-95% of their reported sightings are genuine UFOs, a figure sharply contrasted with the 90-95% IFO (Identified Flying Object) rate acknowledged by other UFO organizations. A letter from Edgar Wunder to a 'Mr. Wunder' is cited, where Wunder accuses authors of not dealing with the UFO phenomenon itself but with peripheral aspects. The article argues that Wunder's stance reveals a lack of understanding of serious scientific investigations, asserting that natural scientists who study these phenomena do not doubt the physical reality of the sightings but rather focus on perceptual shifts in witnesses.

The author expresses disbelief at the idea that UFO reports are independent of media coverage, suggesting that the ARD Prime-Time broadcast in 1994, which presented MUFON-CES as 'the scientists who believe in Flying Saucers,' led to an influx of exotic UFO claims. The article refutes the assertion that 'ideological skeptics' like those at CENAP and GEP attribute all UFO reports to known phenomena, stating this is explicitly not the case. It argues that many misidentifications are due to a lack of knowledge, not deliberate concealment, and that UFOlogists themselves engage in 'true concealment' by distorting information.

The Edgar Wunder Incident: 'Sailing Under False Colors'

A significant portion of the issue is dedicated to an incident involving Edgar Wunder and a website that appeared to be associated with CENAP. The article describes how Ferhat Talayhan, after visiting Edgar Wunder, discovered that www.cenap.de was not operated by CENAP but by Wunder, who had owned the domain for about six months. This was perceived as a deliberate attempt to mislead users seeking information from CENAP and redirect them to other UFO groups, some of which are described as having questionable investigation methods. The article frames this as a "network-related war" against CENAP, orchestrated by a "skeptic organization" (implied to be GWUP) that allegedly views extraterrestrial life as a realistic possibility. A legal proceeding was reportedly initiated against the operator of www.cenap.de to prevent them from publishing under that name.

Dennis Kirstein is mentioned as having brought this issue to an online forum, initially viewing it as a successful prank. However, criticism arose, with others deeming it malicious and deceitful. Kirstein then suggested the matter should remain 'within the scene' and not be public.

An anonymous caller is quoted expressing anger towards 'Walter' (presumably Werner Walter of CENAP) for allegedly trying to discredit a 'scientist,' claiming to have read about it on a GWUP list. The article dismisses this as an irrational outburst.

Wunder's Explanation and Reactions

Following the controversy, Edgar Wunder reportedly removed the internet page, claiming it was a "subtly ironic 'joke'" that some people "didn't understand." He apologized, calling it a "bad, poorly executed joke" and an "experiment" that had an "unexpected outcome." The article dismisses this explanation as a face-saving tactic. Several individuals who had previously supported Wunder expressed disappointment, calling the incident a "dud" and a "bad taste," questioning his true intentions.

Reactions from individuals invited by Wunder to participate in the GEP's internal email list 'UFO-Forschung' were negative. Some threatened legal action, while others suggested Wunder should focus his criticisms on figures like Hesemann and Buttlar. The author compares Wunder's actions to immature adolescent behavior, noting that while he once believed such behavior would be outgrown, he has since realized this is not the case.

The 'Skepticism' of Wunder and GWUP

The article links Wunder's actions to the broader context of GWUP's 'professional criticism,' suggesting it has become a pattern. It references a previous 'embarrassing' press release by Wunder regarding the ARD series "Dimension PSI" in late 2003, implying that this incident casts Wunder's current actions in a new, negative light.

The 'Satirical' Entry and CENAP's Defense

A post from April 26, 2004, in the DEGUFO guestbook, attributed to Franklin Harder, is presented as a satirical take on the situation. It accuses people with limited mental flexibility of trying to undermine the 'All-open research' and claims that CENAP is the target of a smear campaign by a 'skeptic organization' that views extraterrestrial life as a realistic possibility. The post alleges that GWUP initiated legal proceedings to prevent CENAP from publishing under its name, calling GWUP members 'hateful, intolerant, narrow-minded people' who want to ban anything that doesn't fit their worldview. It urges readers to publicize this and send complaints to the GWUP board.

Bernd Harder is identified as the actual GWUP press spokesperson, suggesting the entry was an inside joke. The article notes that the situation was initially confusing, with GEP and DEGUFO denying involvement, but the pressure on Wunder became too great, leading him to remove the page.

Further Analysis of UFO Phenomena and Skepticism

The issue continues by discussing the nature of UFO reports and the challenges in investigating them. It highlights that many reports are not easily explained and that witnesses often feel they have witnessed a violation of natural laws. The article criticizes the tendency in "scientific ufology" to focus on the 'miracle' aspect of UFOs and to attack opponents' arguments rather than providing definitive proof. It states that refuting an opponent's argument is not a substitute for evidence and that assuming one's own reasons are valid simply because the opponent's are flawed is poor logic.

The article also touches upon the idea that UFO sightings are not necessarily independent of media coverage, suggesting that major media events can influence the number and nature of reports received. It reiterates the critical stance of CENAP and GWUP, emphasizing that they do not automatically dismiss all UFO reports but rigorously investigate them to identify mundane explanations.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical examination of UFO claims, the distinction between genuine investigation and unsubstantiated speculation, and the conflict between skeptical and credulous approaches to the UFO phenomenon. The editorial stance is clearly one of skepticism towards extraordinary claims, advocating for rigorous scientific methodology and the debunking of hoaxes and misinterpretations. The issue emphasizes the importance of critical thinking and the dangers of unverified information, particularly in the context of UFOlogy.

Title: CENAP Newsflash
Issue: Nr.15/2
Volume: 15
Date: November 2005
Publisher: CENAP
Country: Germany
Language: German

This issue of CENAP Newsflash delves into the complexities and internal disputes within the German UFO research community. It critically examines the methodologies, claims, and organizational dynamics of various groups, highlighting a perceived lack of genuine scientific rigor and consensus.

Critique of UFOlogy and Skepticism

The article begins by quoting an individual named Werner, whose 'enlightenment' efforts are seen as causing more harm than good, creating a 'self-affirmation circle' within CENAP. The author expresses skepticism about the value of reporting sightings to organizations like DEGUFO or MUFON-CES if they are perceived to be no better than Werner's approach.

A significant portion of the text is dedicated to dissecting logical fallacies prevalent in UFOlogy, particularly the 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' (appeal to ignorance). This fallacy is described as the tactic of asserting that because a claim cannot be disproven, it must be true. The author argues that the inability of scientists, pilots, or academics to find a conventional explanation for a phenomenon does not automatically validate an extraterrestrial hypothesis. Instead, it might simply indicate a lack of sufficient information or understanding.

The article posits that the choice is not between accepting a conventional explanation or concluding extraterrestrial visitation. Rather, it suggests that phenomena remain unexplained due to incomplete information, not necessarily because they are evidence of alien visits. The author emphasizes that if all relevant information were available, conventional explanations would likely suffice.

Challenges in Proving/Disproving UFOs

The text further elaborates on the difficulty of proving a negative. Using the example of 'flying badgers' in German forests, it illustrates that proving their non-existence would require constant surveillance of every square centimeter. Conversely, proving their existence would be as simple as capturing one. This analogy is applied to UFOs, suggesting that proving the absence of extraterrestrial visitors would require monitoring the entire Earth, while proving their presence would be achieved by finding even a single piece of evidence, such as a captured alien, a ray gun, a skin cell, or an alien ashtray.

Internal Dynamics of UFO Organizations

The article then turns its attention to the internal workings and alleged lack of cooperation among UFO organizations. It mentions the 'UFO-Arbeitskreis' (UFO Working Group) associated with GfA, comprising individuals from CENAP, GEP, and GWUP, including Jochen Ickinger and Peter Hattwig. The author expresses skepticism about the openness of these groups, particularly Peter Hattwig, who is described as a proponent of Steiner's teachings and allegedly representing an 'open stance' on UFO phenomena, including abductions. The article contends that this stance is not genuinely open but rather 'petrified' in 'pure UFO superstition'.

It criticizes the perceived lack of teamwork and the ideological entrenchment within these groups. The article asserts that organizations like DEGUFO and MUFON-CES have shown no interest in finding a common consensus with others like CENAP and GEP. It dismisses the idea of a 'consensus paper' for German UFO research as a fabrication or wishful thinking, stating that the reality is a lack of consensus.

The author accuses some organizations of engaging in a 'whitewashing tactic' to appear better than they are, masking the underlying issues. The article suggests that UFO fans often live in two different worlds, struggling to reconcile their beliefs with reality.

Criticism of GEP and Financial Concerns

A footnote (1) highlights an interview in 'GEP-Insider' where Sascha Schomacker of GEP claims positive initial steps towards consensus with DEGUFO, MUFON-CES, and other groups. The author strongly refutes this, stating that it is untrue. Schomacker's assertion that the author is shifting towards 'critical boulevard ufology' and that more 'healthy research zeal' is needed instead of biased arguments against 'stupid ufologists' is also challenged.

The article suggests that GEP's actions, particularly the editorial in the mentioned issue, are driven by a desperate need for paying members. It points out that GEP is seeking donations for a new computer, which the author finds surprising for an engaged hobbyist who should be able to afford one themselves without resorting to 'tear-jerking appeals'. The piece concludes by noting that the more members an organization has, the greater the chance of external funding, implying a dependency on external resources.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue of CENAP Newsflash revolve around the critique of UFOlogy as a field, focusing on logical fallacies, the lack of scientific rigor, and internal organizational conflicts. The editorial stance is clearly skeptical, questioning the validity of many UFO claims and the methods employed by prominent UFO research groups. The article advocates for a more critical and evidence-based approach, emphasizing the importance of not succumbing to 'UFO superstition' or making unsubstantiated claims based on ignorance.