CENAP Report - No 051

Magazine Overview

Title: CENAP - REPORT
Issue: Nr.51
Volume: 5.Jahrgang/H5
Date: Mai 1980
Publisher: CENAP (centrales erforschungsnetz außergewöhnlicher phänomene)
Country: Germany
Language: German

This issue of CENAP-REPORT, dated May 1980, features a cover with a cartoon depicting aliens, a flying saucer, and a man with a 'No Trespassing' sign, accompanied by the provocative question, "Can't you read? - Disappear!". The primary focus of this issue is the debunking of UFO claims, particularly through the detailed analysis of photographic and film evidence.

The Mis-Manning of the Ufologist Stall!

The lead article, researched and analyzed by Klaus Webner, details the debunking of a film by Mr. Daniel Fry and the photo and film material of Mr. Fritz van Nest. Webner references an article in THE U.F.O. INVESTIGATOR (Jan./Feb. 1967) where NICAP announced the termination of its association with Daniel W. Fry, citing his attempts to leverage his NICAP membership for publicity and book sales. NICAP explicitly forbade Fry from identifying himself as a member.

The article then reveals a sensational further debunking achieved through the analysis of film material. Webner, using a rented 16mm Steenbeck editing table, discovered that after the scenes from Fry's film concluded, the same 15-meter film reel contained further scenes from a different film. These scenes depicted what is known in Germany only as a photograph: a "Flying Saucer" photographed by Mr. Fritz van Nest.

Webner's initial finding was the existence of a 16mm film by Fritz van Nest, not just the previously known 7 photographs. The story begins with an article from the November 1975 issue of OFFICIAL UFO magazine by Wendelle C. Stevens, titled "BELL-SHAPED UFO'S." On page 39, Stevens described the van Nest case.

The Fritz van Nest Sighting (March 1968)

According to the reconstruction, on a late Thursday afternoon in March 1968, Mr. Fritz van Nest, a respected geophysics engineer, was conducting radiation measurements near Kanab, Utah. He heard a deep, powerful tone and saw a clearly outlined, black, grayish-blue, metallic-looking, flattened, well-formed, round, domed aircraft ascending from a canyon. It moved in a curved line westward, then southwest, and finally from front to his right.

Van Nest quickly took out his camera. He realized he had too much light and adjusted the camera (aperture closed, K.W.), taking two more photos. Photo Nr. 3 was overexposed and orange with bright light streaks because the camera was tilted and the object had moved too far into the sun. Numbers 5 and 6 showed the object as a barely discernible point near the sun, and the point was not found on the print of number 7. The entire observation lasted only 15 to 20 seconds, mostly viewed through the viewfinder.

Van Nest perceived that the hemispherical structures were retracted as the object ascended. He also noted a short whip antenna protruding from the center of the object's top. There was no discernible rotation or lights. The object exhibited slight, unstable wobbling, as if caught by air currents. Its forward movement initially seemed jerky but smoothed out to a steady 35 to 40 mph speed at about 350 to 400 feet above the ground (in Photo Nr. 2), ascending at a 20° to 30° angle directly into the sun. He estimated its diameter to be between 35 and 40 feet. He recalled his radiation measuring device was on and found nothing abnormal.

Van Nest had previously met and worked with Dr. Menzel in Panama, sharing his views on UFOs. He presented an enlarged print of Photo Nr. 2 to Dr. Menzel, asking for his opinion. Menzel's sole comment was, "How did you do that?" Shortly thereafter, Dr. Menzel reportedly relaxed his efforts to debunk UFO cases, seemingly having his convictions shaken.

Analysis of the Fritz van Nest Film

The CENAP-REPORT presents a blow-up copy of a 16mm film frame alongside a reproduction of the well-known Photo Nr. 2 from the Fritz van Nest series. The analysis reveals that the object in the film is identical to the one in the photograph, and the landscape is also identical. The film's deceptive nature is considered proven.

The report argues that the Fritz van Nest photo series is merely a byproduct of this "SF film," and the filmmaker and photographer are the same person. When asked by an American investigator how he obtained the film strip, Daniel Fry claimed ignorance and that it was sent to him anonymously. A note in the German edition of the book "ERLEBNIS VON WHITE SANDS" (Experience from White Sands) on page 116 mentions that the "IFO FILM" shown by Mr. Fry at the 9th International UFO Congress in Wiesbaden also depicted an "IFO" filmed by a friend of his in the southern Californian desert near Giant Rock.

Further Investigations and Connections

Wendelle C. Stevens, described as not being a true UFO researcher, reportedly pursued further inquiries about the source of the Fritz van Nest photos about a year prior, as he no longer believed his own earlier written account. A Mr. Wayne in California possesses similar photos that could have originated from the Nest workshop and show the same landscape. Mr. Wayne traced the matter back to a Marc Aldecora of Admiral Bearing (?), who in turn referred to Mrs. Dean Dawson, director of the Natural History Museum in Santa Barbara. Her cousin, Billie Thompson from Arizona, owns property in Merlin, Oregon. Thompson and a Ms. Tahalita Weis from Merlin took photos of the property for a Florida company interested in purchasing the land. These photos were taken with a Yashica camera that malfunctioned. Upon developing the film, UFOs were reportedly seen. None of the women claimed to have seen or heard anything unusual.

Seven photos are said to be from Merlin, taken about 10 or 11 AM in the spring of 1972. Tahalita Weis reportedly has the negatives. Mrs. Dean Dawson also mentioned a Mr. Dan Fry who filmed an 8mm film of a landing flying saucer in the same area (Merlin). A brief interjection notes how knowledge emerges over time.

Miss Thompson (daughter or wife of Mr. Billy Thompson, who is Mrs. Dean Dawson's cousin) told her that Mr. Fry (or Frye) and Mrs. Tahalita Weis were once married. The German edition of "ERLEBNIS VON WHITE SANDS" contains a dedication: "Dedicated to my dear wife Tahalita, whose prayers and constant help have contributed so much to the development of understanding."

The report states that these connections are more intricate than any crime novel.

Results and Considerations

Both the Fritz van Nest film and photo series are deemed naive deceptions. Mr. Fry is considered mentally ill, as he would not have passed off scenes of toys hanging from blue threads as authentic material. The report could not ascertain if Mr. Fritz van Nest was related to the Fry family (brother? second husband of Tahalita Weis?).

Professor Menzel's Influence

The proximity of the case to Professor Donald H. Menzel, known for his works arguing that UFOs are merely misinterpretations and elaborate hoaxes, leads to two conclusions:

1. Professor Menzel and Mr. van Nest may have tested the reaction to UFO photos by orchestrating this prank.
2. Mr. van Nest might have intended to mock both the fanatical anti-UFO advocate Professor Menzel with photos and the misguided ufologist Fry with a film.

The author considers this a peculiar case with clear identification but a convoluted history, requesting information for sources and contributions.

CENAP - Intern

This section addresses CENAP members and CR readers, marking the first issue of the second 50-block series, with the 100th issue seemingly on the horizon. It questions the future direction of UFO research, acknowledging the need to manage the "ostrich policy" of ufologists but also noting the rise of a new generation of ufologists who adopt established beliefs, potentially creating a fertile ground for the sensational belief in flying saucers for future generations.

CENAP emphasizes the ongoing struggle to maintain a clear boundary between ufology and UFO research, noting attempts to dilute the field. They anticipate confrontation with ufologists who refuse to acknowledge CENAP's work, labeling them as "UFO-Rockers" and "troublemakers." CENAP views their own efforts as ideal compared to the current level of ufological endeavors.

SYRGENSTEIN News

A meeting of UFO group leaders is described as a lackluster effort, with interest levels low and the undertaking questioned. However, they hope for answers by the end of May, hence the dispatch of this issue.

Call to UFO Groups

The CENTRAL RESEARCH NETWORK FOR EXTRAORDINARY PHENOMENA (CENAP) calls for discussion on UFO problems in research, evaluation, interdisciplinary engagement, and UFO-political/ideological public relations. A conference is scheduled for Saturday/Sunday, August 2nd/3rd, 1980, at the Hotel-Restaurant SYRGENSTEIN in the eastern Swabian Jura. Each UFO group is invited to send one or two delegates to present their group, their evidence, and their conclusions regarding the origin and identity of observed phenomena. The conference aims to discuss future cooperation in data flow and field investigations, potentially leading to binding resolutions. A unified public relations strategy is also to be discussed to avoid confronting media and authorities with ufological jargon.

Researchers are asked to respond by the last week of May. If the response is positive, Klaus Webner will conduct on-site filming for his TV documentary.

Parts of the CENAP Archive to be Dissolved

Werner Walter has sorted and partially dissolved his archive. Inquiries regarding the purchase of magazines and books should be directed to his address.

UFO back-log (Part 1)

This section revisits the classic UFO case: The Socorro Incident, April 24, 1964. Lonnie Zamora reported leaving his car and hearing a loud roaring sound that started at a low frequency and quickly escalated to a high, roaring frequency and then to a loud noise. Simultaneously, he saw a flame under the object. The object then began to ascend vertically, slowly. The lower part of the Arroyo was covered in soft, rain-washed sand. The object's flame was bright blue. The report ends mid-sentence.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue strongly emphasizes a critical and analytical approach to UFO phenomena, prioritizing evidence-based debunking over uncritical acceptance. The editorial stance is one of skepticism towards sensational claims and a call for rigorous, scientific investigation. CENAP positions itself as a network dedicated to uncovering the truth, even when it means challenging established narratives within the UFO community. The magazine highlights the internal challenges and debates within ufology, advocating for a more structured and evidence-driven approach. The call for a conference and unified public relations strategy indicates a desire to professionalize the field and engage more effectively with the public and authorities. The inclusion of the Socorro case, even in its incomplete state, suggests a continued interest in classic UFO events, though the primary focus remains on dissecting and disproving questionable evidence.

This issue of "Flying Saucers" magazine, dated April 1964, focuses heavily on the highly publicized Lonnie Zamora sighting near Socorro, New Mexico. The magazine delves into the details of the encounter, the physical evidence left behind, and critically examines the subsequent media coverage and interpretations of the event. The issue also includes a report from CENAP detailing UFO cases investigated in Germany and Austria.

The Socorro Case: A Detailed Examination

The central theme of the magazine is the encounter of Lonnie Zamora, a police officer, with an unidentified object on April 24, 1964. Zamora reported seeing an egg-shaped object, described as 'aluminum-white' and smooth with no windows or doors, land in a remote area near Socorro. He initially mistook it for an overturned car. The object was described as having two legs extending from its underside, which were approximately 3.5 feet above the ground when he first observed it. Zamora heard a loud roar, followed by a whistling sound, after which the object ascended and moved rapidly away.

Physical Evidence and Witness Testimony

Following the sighting, four V-shaped indentations, termed 'cushion prints,' were discovered in the sandy soil. These prints were approximately 12-14 inches long and 1-2 inches deep. The magazine presents Zamora's own sketches of the object, showing variations in his descriptions over time, particularly regarding the number and shape of the object's legs. It is noted that Zamora's eyesight without his glasses was poor, which may have affected his detailed observations.

Media Misrepresentation and Analysis

A significant portion of the article is dedicated to analyzing how the Socorro case was reported and interpreted by various authors and organizations. The magazine criticizes authors like Frank Edwards and Jacques Vallee for embellishing Zamora's account. For instance, Edwards' book reportedly described Zamora seeing two small, human-like beings in white overalls, which Zamora himself later clarified were more like a pair of white overalls hanging on a clothesline. The article highlights discrepancies in the number of 'cushion prints' reported by different sources, with some mentioning five or even circular indentations, contrasting with Zamora's initial observation and Captain Holder's measurements.

Dr. J. Allen Hynek, a prominent UFO investigator, is quoted as stating that Zamora saw a 'tangible, physical object' and cautioned against dismissing the case as a common phenomenon. The magazine also touches upon the possibility of the object being a secret US military aircraft, given the proximity of White Sands Missile Range, but ultimately leaves open the possibility of an extraterrestrial origin.

CENAP Report

In addition to the Socorro case, the magazine includes a report from CENAP (centrales erforschungsnetz außergewöhnlicher phänomene) dated March 1, 1980. This report summarizes cases investigated by CENAP in Germany and Austria. Out of 191 cases, 7 were classified as UFOs/UAPs. The report categorizes various phenomena reported, including ball lightning, satellites, meteors, aircraft, and optical illusions, with a significant number of cases falling under 'insufficient information' or being misidentified as balloons or aircraft.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine's editorial stance appears to be one of critical analysis, aiming to present factual accounts while also scrutinizing how these accounts are reported and sensationalized. There is a clear emphasis on distinguishing between witness testimony, physical evidence, and subsequent interpretations or embellishments. The Socorro case is presented as a classic example of how a significant sighting can be distorted in the media. The CENAP report adds a comparative element, showing the broader scope of UFO investigations beyond a single country.