CENAP Report - No 049

Magazine Overview

Title: CENAP - REPORT
Issue: Nr.49
Date: March 1980
Publisher: CENAP (Centrales Erforschungsnetz Außergewöhnlicher Phänomene)
Country: Germany
Language: German

This issue of the CENAP REPORT, number 49, dated March 1980, focuses on investigations into alleged UFO sightings and the organization's ongoing research efforts. It includes a detailed account of a field investigation near Biblis, Germany, a report on the UFOCON 4 conference in Australia, and a comparative test to debunk a New Year's Eve sighting.

Editorial Introduction

The issue begins with a letter to the readers and CENAP members from CENAP-Mannheim, dated February 25, 1980. It reflects on the four years of work since CENAP's founding in March 1976, and the preceding 'training period' since November 1973 when the 'private UFO-Forschungsgruppe Mannheim' was formed. The editorial notes a perceived decrease in 'genuine' UFO sightings, attributing this to serious investigations of individual cases. It announces an upcoming UFO seminar scheduled for August 2nd/3rd, 1980, in Syrgenstein, inviting UFO groups and individual researchers to share findings and foster personal contact. The letter also introduces a new UFO newspaper by Roland M. Horn, available from March 1980.

UFOCON 4 Conference in Australia

Pages 3-5 detail the UFOCON 4 conference, held in Sydney, New South Wales, from October 13th to 15th, 1979. This conference brought together Australian UFO groups to discuss ongoing problems and findings. The report highlights the collaborative efforts between groups and the Centre for UFO-Studies. Key presentations included:

• David Reneke, Lad Godic, and Colin Phillips: Summarized their activities.
• Bill Chalker: Presented on 'physical UFO evidence in Australia'.
• Mark Moravec: Discussed 'the ethics of UFO investigation'.
• Colin Phillips: Spoke on 'UFO Data Cover-up'.
• Quentin Fogarty: Showcased a New Zealand UFO film.
• Dr. Geoff Stevens: Discussed the 'Kettering Landing'.
• Bill Chalker: Reported on 'Interrupted Journeys in Australia'.
• David Reneke: Presented the 'Ben Boyd UFO-Film'.
• Roy Russel: Addressed 'poor UFO information'.
• Mark Moravec: Discussed 'UFOs & the Paranormal'.
• Lad Godic: Outlined the 'Future of ACOS & UFO Research in Australia'.

Discussions on Monday, October 15th, focused on closer cooperation between ACOS and scientific/technical advisors, the finances of UFO research, and the impact of the film 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind'. The report notes the formation of the AUSTRALIAN CENTRE FOR UFO STUDIES (ACUFOS) from January 1, 1980, replacing the dissolved ACOS, with a new journal to be published. The goal was to unify UFO investigation in Australia and establish national centers for UFO research.

Investigation: 'Stern unter der Wolkendecke' (Star under the Cloud Cover)

Pages 6-9 document an investigation into a reported UFO sighting near Biblis, Germany, which occurred on January 27, 1980. The initial report came from a woman who saw an object, followed by another report of an oval-red object near the nuclear power plant. Police patrols found nothing.

The CENAP team, including Werner Walter and Hansjürgen Köhler, conducted a field investigation on January 29, 1980, at the alleged landing site in the Jägersburger Wald near Einhausen. They initially observed mysterious lights, which turned out to be from a football field floodlight. Further investigation revealed that a white-red, round object seen later was a plane with its landing lights on. The report concludes that the Biblis sightings were misidentified 'In-Flight Objects' (IFOs), possibly influenced by local resident Horst Raps, who had written about UFO contacts.

Comparative Test: Balloon-UFOs am Himmel

Pages 10 details a comparative test conducted on January 19, 1980, on a frozen lake near Mannheim-Vogelstang/Wallstadt. This test aimed to verify a New Year's Eve 1979/1980 sighting that CENAP members had witnessed. A hot air balloon was launched, and the participants confirmed that the 'seen' phenomenon matched the behavior and appearance of the hot air balloon, thus dispelling any UFO interpretation. Photos were taken of the balloon's launch and flight to document the findings. The report suggests that many such 'sightings' could be attributed to hot air balloons, which are becoming increasingly popular for recreational use.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue strongly emphasizes a critical and investigative approach to UFO phenomena. CENAP's stance is to debunk misidentifications and provide rational explanations for sightings, as demonstrated by the Biblis investigation and the hot air balloon test. The organization appears to believe that the number of 'genuine' UFOs is decreasing as more serious research is conducted. The report highlights the importance of direct, on-site investigation over passive speculation. The formation of ACUFOS in Australia and the upcoming UFO seminar in Germany indicate CENAP's commitment to fostering organized, scientific UFO research and collaboration.

This issue of a German-language publication, identified by page numbers and content, focuses on hot air balloons and a critical examination of UFO claims. The cover prominently features 'Heißluft-Ballon' (Hot Air Balloon) with the subtitle 'Nachts leuchtend, am Tage durch rot-weiße Farbe gut sichtbar' (Glowing at night, clearly visible during the day by its red-white color). The cover also lists various uses for these balloons, such as New Year's gifts, alternatives to fireworks, party favors, and for balloon rallies and children's parties. A small illustration depicts a balloon being released at night.

Hot Air Balloons: Instructions and Safety

The first section provides instructions for launching a hot air balloon, emphasizing careful handling by multiple people to unfold the envelope and open the windsock. It details the ignition process using matches on the heating element and the need to shield from wind. The ascent is described as taking approximately 2-3 minutes to inflate, reaching over 500 meters in about 10 minutes, with the flame extinguishing and a slow descent following, for a total flight time of about 20 minutes.

Environmental considerations are mentioned, urging users to fill out a notification slip for the finder. Crucially, a warning section highlights safety precautions: use only outdoors in calm weather to prevent the balloon from flipping over and self-igniting, avoid launching on hot summer days, choose launch sites far from obstacles, and only release the balloon if it's undamaged. It also advises against using them near airports or flammable substances.

For mass launches, a permit from the responsible air traffic control (Flugsicherungsstelle) is required, with potential requests for launch location, time, number of balloons, color, and weight (230g), ascent/descent speeds (50 m/min).

Contact numbers for air traffic control (AIS) are provided for several German cities: Bremen, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hannover, Köln-Bonn, München, Nürnberg, and Stuttgart.

The issue states that the hot air balloon is designed for maximum safety and functionality, with its envelope shape providing self-stabilization. However, the manufacturer disclaims liability for any damages, as they cannot influence launch conditions.

Visuals and Balloon Types

Two pages feature photographs of people handling hot air balloons. One photo shows three individuals, identified as Herr Walter, Herr Köhler, and Herr Geörge, holding a partially inflated balloon. Another photo shows the nearly fully inflated balloon shortly before takeoff.

Page 3 presents three photographic sequences labeled 'Flugphasen nach dem Start' (Flight phases after launch). These images, taken with an 80mm telephoto lens and daylight film, capture different stages of a balloon's flight. The text notes that while more sensitive film could have yielded better results, daylight film was chosen for its common availability. The article suggests that many observed phenomena attributed to UFOs might actually be these hot air balloons, which can reach 500m and appear as a red-orange object, with flight behavior that deviates from conventional aircraft, leading to misidentification.

Page 4 contrasts these 'Party-Ballons' with larger 'research balloons' used for atmospheric studies. A diagram illustrates the components of such a research balloon, including the balloon itself, a 'Bake' (likely a payload or burner assembly), an 'Abschneider' (cutter), a parachute, radar reflectors, a command receiver, an altimeter, telemetry antenna, and a blinker light. The text explains that these larger balloons, depending on their mission, vary in size and shape. It mentions that reflections from the sun off these balloons can cause confusion and lead to misidentification, citing cases in Germany where the cause was ultimately identified as a balloon, despite initial press reports with question marks. The article notes that while the 'round' balloon is most familiar, research balloons come in various forms.

A caption on page 5 refers to 'Ballons zur Erforschung der Stratosphäre und Atmosphäre kurz vor dem Start in Frankreich' (Balloons for the exploration of the stratosphere and atmosphere shortly before launch in France), accompanied by a blank space where a photo would typically be.

Investigation into Daniel Fry's Claims

The latter half of the magazine, starting on page 6, shifts focus to a critical investigation by Klaus Webner titled 'Mr. Daniel Fry lügt!' (Mr. Daniel Fry Lies!). The article begins by quoting a passage from a German edition of 'Erlebnis von White Sands' (Experience of White Sands), which describes an unusual event and acknowledges that some will believe it while others will not.

Webner then recounts Daniel Fry's alleged experience on July 4, 1950. Fry, having missed the last bus from the White Sands proving ground, went for a walk at dusk. He claims to have seen an inexplicable light, which turned out to be a flying saucer landing about 20 meters away. He approached the craft, touched its hull, and heard a voice warning him it was still hot. The voice then spoke of repulsive forces and claimed Fry was chosen, with the 'intruders' intending to positively stimulate events on Earth.

Webner dismisses these claims, stating that UFO research has uncovered a deception. He details Fry's alleged conversation with the voice, which he claims originated from a mothership hovering 1450 km above Earth. Fry was invited aboard for a 30-minute round trip to New York. The article suggests Fry received messages for humanity and that the 'DUIST Leiter' (DUIST Leader) felt compelled to expand on these 'brain-riddles'.

Analysis of Daniel Fry's 'UFO Film'

The core of Webner's investigation focuses on an 'IFO-Film' produced by Daniel Fry, which purportedly shows filmed extraterrestrial spacecraft. Webner obtained a 16mm color filmstrip and analyzed it using a Steenbeck editing table. He describes five scenes from the film:

• Scene 1: A white 'object' wobbles and rotates in the wind but doesn't change its position. Webner identifies this as a small model suspended by a thread, moved in a pendulum motion. He notes that Fry added a slow-motion effect by copying each frame seven times to simulate a powerful spacecraft, but claims it was unsuccessful.
• Scene 2: Similar to Scene 1, a small model sways in the wind without changing its location.
• Scene 3 & 4: These heavily overexposed shots are intended to hide the threads. Webner states that two Japanese paper lanterns were glued together to create the 'object,' which was then hung in front of the camera. He calls it a 'funny spaceship' that one can see through, and again, the model's position remains unchanged.
• Scene 5: Another model hangs on threads, moving slightly in the wind but not changing its position.

Webner concludes that these scenes, along with the transitions and cuts, indicate that the entire film is a montage. He notes that Fry was asked by an American investigator for technical details about the recordings and only replied that he used a camera on a tripod, which Webner sarcastically calls 'super scientific'.

Conclusion on Fry's Film and Further Analysis

The 'ERGEBNIS' (Result) section unequivocally states: 'Here lies, without the slightest doubt, a completely primitive hoax film, whose naivety will truly only be unrecognized by totally blind believers.'

The article then touches upon the analysis of 'foreign material' that Mr. Daniel Fry claimed to have received from an extraterrestrial in the form of a circular disc. It mentions that Professor Wänke, Director of Cosmochemistry at the Max-Planck Institute in Mainz, was tasked with analyzing this material as part of a German television film. However, the DUIST leader's account of the analysis is vague, with employees giving different positive statements about the material's 'strange' and 'unusually diverse composition of numerous elements.' The article notes that a letter from Prof. Wänke, dated after the filming, yielded no concrete analysis results, which the author found mysterious.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine exhibits a critical and skeptical stance towards UFO claims, particularly those involving alleged extraterrestrial contact and photographic or film evidence. The article on Daniel Fry is a prime example, meticulously dissecting his story and film to expose it as a deliberate hoax. While acknowledging the existence and potential uses of hot air balloons, the publication seems to use them as a counterpoint to sensational UFO reports, suggesting that many sightings can be attributed to misidentification of mundane objects. The editorial stance is clearly one of debunking and promoting a rational, evidence-based approach to unexplained phenomena, contrasting with what it perceives as gullibility in the UFO community.

This document appears to be a segment from a publication, possibly a newsletter or magazine, focusing on UFO phenomena and scientific investigations. It includes correspondence, witness reports, and analytical findings. The primary sections cover an analysis of a mysterious material and a detailed report on a UFO sighting in Austria.

Analysis of Mysterious Material The document begins with a letter dated October 19, 1979, from Prof. Dr. H. Wänke, Director of the Department of Cosmochemistry at the Max-Planck-Institut für Chemie (Otto-Hahn-Institut) in Mainz, Germany, addressed to Herr Klaus Webner. Prof. Wänke states that their analyses of material presented by a Herr Dr. Frey yielded no evidence of an extraterrestrial origin. Specifically, the material did not contain any radioisotopes that would be expected from exposure to cosmic radiation in space. The material itself was described as a circular disc with a circular hole in the center, and its dimensions were noted to be in the American measurement system. Prof. Wänke concludes by suggesting that Webner should draw his own conclusions regarding the credibility of Herr Dr. Frey.

Following this letter, there is a handwritten note attributed to Klaus Webner, reflecting on the analysis and its lack of publication. Webner expresses frustration, suggesting that the results were deliberately suppressed and that this constitutes a form of 'deception of the public.' He laments the lack of transparency and the potential for 'lies' to go uncorrected.

Austria Report: Fall Niederschrems/Gund The second major section, titled 'Austria - Report,' details an investigation into a UFO sighting that occurred in Niederschrems, Austria. This report is presented as a continuation of a previous article (CR Nr.45) and is based on documentation and a sketch provided by Alfred Stoifl of Gmünd.

A sketch illustrates the location of the sighting, showing roads, a village (Niederschremser Siedlungsstraße), and a wooded area. The sketch indicates a possible UFO flight path ('UFO-Flugbahn') and the location of the witness, Kurkus, with his car (Kurkas PKW).

The report focuses on the testimony of the witness, Kurkus. According to Kurkus, at the time of the sighting on January 11, 1979, there was almost no traffic, likely due to snow. He described the event as happening in complete silence. The object approached from the south at about half the height of a house roof. Kurkus estimated its size to be about twice that of Venus, Jupiter, or Saturn seen at night, and it was very brightly lit, like a Cro-Lux lamp, with a white and bluish shimmer.

While the object was approaching, Kurkus exited his car to observe it better, holding onto the car door for support. He stated that the object slowed down, appearing to stop just before a street lamp. Then, it split into two halves. One half continued straight ahead. The fate of the second half was less clear; Kurkus could not definitively say if it flew off at a right angle or in an easterly direction. After the split, everything happened very quickly. The second object reportedly dissolved into the air within a few seconds. The first object disappeared behind a house on the left side.

Kurkus drove to the end of the street, which led to an intersection, hoping to get another glimpse. He recalls driving this short distance, which took no more than 20 seconds, but could not provide more precise timing due to the lack of a stopwatch and the snowy conditions.

Investigation and Analysis of the Sighting Further investigation involved Dr. Alexander Keul from the University of Vienna Observatory. A day after a report on the incident appeared in the 'SAMSTAG KURIER' on January 13, 1979, Dr. Keul contacted Kurkus. Keul expressed interest in the phenomenon and stated he would inquire about any aircraft that might have been in the area at the time.

The following day, January 15, Dr. Keul called Kurkus again. However, his response was brief and unhelpful, stating that the air traffic control in Vienna/Schwechat had no time to deal with such matters due to their routine workload. The investigators expressed disappointment with this lack of cooperation, fearing it could hinder UFO research.

The report, compiled by CENAP investigator Alfred Stoifl, contrasts the opinion of Hans Bauer, the chief controller at Vienna Airport, with that of the CENAP Section Austria. While Bauer might have offered a different identification, Stoifl and CENAP propose an alternative explanation: a meteor with an extremely flat trajectory that split in the witness's field of vision, appearing as two objects.

A sketch at the end of the report illustrates this proposed scenario, showing the point of fragmentation ('Punkt der Hufspliterung'), the flight path ('Flug'), the disappearance behind the house ('Verschwinden hinterm Haus'), and the observer Kurkus ('Beobachter Kurka'). The apparent descent to the east ('Scheinbarer Niedergang im Osten') is also noted.

The report concludes that the Kurkus sighting from January 11, 1979, is now considered closed by CENAP-Staff Werner Walter.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance The document touches upon themes of scientific skepticism versus public perception, the challenges of UFO investigation, and the perceived lack of transparency from official bodies. The initial letter from the Max-Planck-Institut represents a scientific, evidence-based approach, while Klaus Webner's note expresses a strong belief in suppressed truths and public deception. The Austrian report highlights the detailed nature of witness testimony and the difficulties faced by independent investigators in obtaining cooperation from official aviation authorities. The editorial stance, as implied by the inclusion of Webner's critical comments and the detailed investigative report, appears to favor open inquiry and a critical examination of both unexplained phenomena and the responses of established institutions.