CENAP Report - No 061

Magazine Overview

Title: CENAP – REPORT
Issue: Nr. 61
Volume: 6. Jahrgang / H3
Date: March 1981
Publisher: CENAP (centrales erforschungsnetz außergewöhnlicher phänomene)
Country of Publication: Germany
Language: German

This issue of CENAP – REPORT, number 61, marks the beginning of the 6th year of CENAP's activities. The editorial expresses concern about the direction of UFO reporting, particularly in the magazine MYSTERIA, which is seen as leaning towards sensationalism and fiction, including topics like MIB (Men in Black) and staged films. The editors criticize the tendency of some UFO publications to prioritize speculation over factual investigation, citing a letter from Hans-Werner Sachmann of MYSTERIA that suggests a subjective evaluation of information.

CENAP positions itself as a serious investigative body, aiming to differentiate between genuine phenomena and speculative theories. They critique the approach of groups like MUFON-CES, which they believe are driven by pseudoreligious aspects and the 'Heimchen-Theorien' (cricket theories), attempting to find evidence of extraterrestrial presence without success. CENAP aims to provide a balanced perspective, examining both 'pro' and 'contra' arguments regarding UFOs and UAPs, and striving to use non-conditioned material for objective analysis.

The magazine highlights a significant event that occurred in Senegal on September 9, 1980, which is presented as the country's first official UFO phenomenon. The incident involved an unidentified object that caused considerable damage in the village of Baridiame and surrounding areas. The report details witness accounts, the object's physical characteristics, and the resulting destruction. CENAP also explores potential connections between this event and atmospheric phenomena like cyclones, referencing a 1966 cyclone in Dakar and a GARP experiment in the Atlantic.

The Baridiame Phenomenon: An Investigation

The core of this issue is the detailed investigation into the event in Senegal. The report begins by referencing a news clipping about a village in Senegal being 'skimmed by UFO,' resulting in injuries and destruction. The Senegalese News Agency reported that the UFO was approximately 30 meters long and 15 meters wide, covered with a blue crown, emitting white smoke, and radiating intense heat. It reportedly blew down about 50 huts and lifted a 200-liter water barrel off the ground, boiling its contents. The incident lasted about two minutes.

CENAP received this information in late December 1980 and, finding no further details, initiated its own investigation. They contacted the German Embassy in Dakar, Senegal, for assistance. Dr. Gutmann from the embassy provided newspaper clippings from September 18-19, 1980, and a map of the region, noting that official reports were in French. The translation was provided by Gilbert Schmitz of ALEPS in Luxembourg.

Witnesses described the object as long, white with a bluish head, and emitting a red light. It was observed over a village near Kebemer, destroying buildings and injuring five people. In the village of Baridiame, located in the Dareu-Mousty department, the phenomenon caused panic. It was described as a massive, rotating object with a white, blindingly bright halo. Herr Mbaye Khouma, a victim, described the object's noise as comparable to ten trucks. His house was damaged, and he suffered hearing loss and burns from sudden heat. The destruction included 24 huts, 8 more damaged, 10 sheds destroyed, and 6 people slightly injured. The object reportedly moved in a north-south direction, uprooting trees and scattering sand and stones.

Three possibilities were initially considered by an investigative committee: a flying saucer, the sonic boom of a supersonic aircraft, or a powerful whirlwind.

Further details emerged about the object's characteristics: it was white with a blue tail, about 30 meters long, and moved in a north-south direction. It was observed to suck up sand, uproot trees, and emit a deafening noise. The heat generated was intense, but there was no fire. The phenomenon lasted two minutes. While some witnesses suggested it was a spaceship, others leaned towards an atmospheric phenomenon like a whirlwind.

Africa and Cyclones: A Comparative Analysis

The report draws a parallel between the Baridiame phenomenon and atmospheric events. It mentions a severe cyclone that hit the Dakar-Yoff airport in 1966, causing significant damage and overturning aircraft. American specialists also noted that many Pacific cyclones originate in West Africa, leading to the GARP experiment in 1974. The results of this experiment were being evaluated at an international conference in Kiev. The article suggests a possible connection between the 1966 cyclone, the Baridiame phenomenon, and a subsequent cyclone named 'Frances' in the Caribbean.

The Meier Photographs: Hoax from The Pleiades

In a separate section, CENAP comments on a report from the December 1980 UFO REPORT concerning the Eduard Meier case. The article discusses the 'Meier Photo Hoax from the Pleiades,' questioning the authenticity of Meier's space travel photos. It mentions an analysis of these photos by a 'Ground Saucer Watch-Computer' and refers to a book titled 'UFO...CONTACT FROM THE PLEIADES,' which claims Billy (Eduard Meier) has over 130 such photos.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue of CENAP – REPORT strongly emphasizes a critical and investigative approach to UFO phenomena. The editorial stance is one of skepticism towards sensationalism and unsubstantiated claims, particularly those found in popular UFO magazines. CENAP advocates for rigorous research, objective analysis, and the separation of fact from fiction. They aim to provide readers with a more grounded understanding of UFO/UAP reports, distinguishing them from mere speculation or 'science fiction.' The magazine also highlights the importance of considering natural atmospheric phenomena as potential explanations for reported sightings, as seen in the comparison with cyclones. The critique of 'Fachzeitschriften' (specialist magazines) suggests a desire to elevate the discourse on UFOs beyond what they perceive as a 'pseudoreligious' or 'mythological' level, pushing for a more scientific and evidence-based approach.

This issue of Magazin 2000, dated Sunday, February 8, 1981, is primarily focused on debunking various UFO claims and exposing what the authors consider to be hoaxes and misrepresentations within the UFO community. The magazine adopts a critical and investigative stance, aiming to provide a factual counterpoint to sensationalist UFO reporting.

Article 1: Billy Meier's UFO Photos and De Anza Systems Analysis

The issue begins by examining the claims of Billy Meier, who reportedly has over 3000 pages of notes and hundreds of clear photos of alien machines. The article mentions an investigation by Wendelle Stevens, Thomas Welch, Britt Nilsson-Elders, and Lee Elders, which allegedly confirmed Meier's assertions. It also notes Wendelle Stevens' partial ownership of the publishing company, GENESIS III Productions. Jim Lorenzen of APRO is quoted as supposedly supporting the book as a true representation of facts, though the article disputes this.

A key point of contention is the analysis of Meier's photos by De Anza Systems in San Jose, California. The article reports that Karl K. Korff investigated this claim with Wayne Heppler, manager of De Anza Systems. Heppler reportedly denied that any analysis was conducted, calling it a "beautification of the picture for the story." He explained that they only enlarged a UFO photo and did not perform any in-depth analysis. Heppler also stated that De Anza Systems does not possess computer analysis equipment for such purposes.

Article 2: Historical UFO Sightings and Woody Allen's Perspective

This section, written by Woody Allen, explores the historical context of UFO sightings, suggesting they are not a recent phenomenon. It references biblical times, ancient Greece (Parmenides), and a 12th-century Saxon manuscript describing celestial phenomena. The article also includes an anecdote about Goethe witnessing fiery red balls in the sky in 1822.

Allen humorously recounts a case involving Sir Chester Ramsbottom who reported being chased by a cigar-shaped object, which was later revealed to be his own nose. The article emphasizes that many reported UFOs are later identified as normal phenomena like weather balloons, meteorites, or satellites.

Article 3: Analysis of Meier's UFO Photos by Ground Saucer Watch Inc.

This segment details an analysis of Meier's photos conducted by Ground Saucer Watch Inc. (GSW) in Phoenix, Arizona. GSW reportedly analyzed 10 examples using methods such as edge magnification, edge coloring, and image raster tests. The conclusion drawn from these analyses was that the UFO models were likely hoaxes. The article states that most of the pictures were too bright to discern fine threads of suspension, and some showed no atmospheric diffusion, which is considered physically impossible for distant objects.

GSW ranked the UFO models as being between eight and 12 inches in size, with only three distinct models appearing in the analyzed images. The article concludes that this represents one less contact case to burden the archives.

Article 4: Reactions to a CENAP Report on George Adamski

This section addresses reactions to a CENAP report about George Adamski published in Magazin 2000. The report apparently covered "old" international facts about Adamski. Surprisingly, CENAP received both positive and negative responses. One anonymous caller made threatening remarks, suggesting "bombs" and "terror" in the UFO scene, and warning CENAP to cease further reporting.

CENAP, represented by H. Köhler from Mannheim, states its commitment to continuing its critical and factual reporting, refusing to be intimidated by UFO fanatics. They assert that they are conducting extensive research into the UFO phenomenon.

Article 5: Critique of Magazin 2000's Reporting on UFOs

Klaus Webner critically reviews Magazin 2000, stating that since its first issue in January 1979, the magazine has shifted from a potentially objective approach to sensationalism. He criticizes the magazine for publishing "unfounded UFO and ghost stories" that are common in other publications.

Webner specifically targets an article in Magazin 2000 Nr. 1 (January 1980) that claimed a former NASA employee confirmed UFOs accompanied American spacecraft to the moon. He investigated the interviewee, Martin Rebensburg, and found that no one in the Werner v. Braun Group knew him, and there were no records in Cap Canaveral or Huntsville mentioning him.

Another article discussed is "UFO Sightings by Astronauts," which listed 15 dates of alleged sightings, citing "CONTACT REPORTS" as the source. Webner notes that this text was plagone from a contribution by Rolf Schaffranke (who uses the pseudonym RHO SIGMA).

Article 6: Skylab UFOs and NASA Photos

This part of the critique focuses on an article by Herbert Mohren in Magazin 2000 Nr. 4 (July/August 1980) titled "Memories of Skylab - Skylab and the UFOs." The article claimed that the Skylab space station was followed by UFOs, defined as extraterrestrial objects. Webner argues that Magazin 2000 published this story without proper research.

He states that the NASA photos presented, allegedly showing undefinable objects in space, are actually highly magnified portions of harmless space photos. In these images, equipment parts in the out-of-focus area near the camera appear to be floating. Webner possesses four copies of the Skylab photos, which he describes as showing only faint red dots on a black background. He notes that Dr. Garriott of the Skylab 3 crew logged a "NEARBY SATELLITE," and that some items were jettisoned overboard, explaining the visual anomalies.

Article 7: "Unofficial UFO Photos from NASA" and Apollo 11

This section addresses an article in Magazin 2000 titled "UNOFFICIAL UFO PHOTOS FROM NASA - SHOWN FOR THE FIRST TIME IN GERMANY." Webner identifies the author as Hellmuth Hoffmann, who he claims is a primary supplier of "outlandish stories" to the magazine. Hoffmann allegedly tried to pass off equipment parts visible in the out-of-focus area of NASA photos as unidentified flying objects.

Hoffmann claimed these were from secret NASA archives that had somehow reached CBA in Japan. In reality, Webner states, CBA bought a regular film copy from NASA and extracted individual frames. Webner asserts that he has been in contact with NASA employees since 1978 and has original NASA film copies, including the Apollo 11 film.

He argues that NASA does not keep this material secret. Regarding the Apollo 11 film, Webner explains that when astronaut Aldrin was securing the film camera, it accidentally triggered briefly. The bright sunlight caused lens reflections and "aperture spots" within the lens, which are clearly visible and move with the camera. He dismisses these as obvious photographic artifacts, not UFOs.

Article 8: Hoffmann's Misrepresentations and CENAP's Research

Webner reiterates his duty to counter Hoffmann's claims about NASA material, noting that Magazin 2000 published his rebuttal in a censored form. He accuses Hoffmann of omitting crucial information that would have discredited him. Webner contrasts this with CENAP's commitment to "hard-hitting information" without censorship.

He disputes Hoffmann's claim that the Apollo 11 photos were "unofficial" and first shown in Germany, stating they were published in ESOTERA in 1975. Webner also asserts that Hoffmann does not possess the film material he discusses. Hoffmann himself admitted in a letter that he only had black-and-white negatives and no color negatives, slides, or film material.

Webner criticizes Hoffmann for ignoring NASA's official responses, which would have debunked his narratives. He also points out that Hoffmann misrepresented the term "extraterrestrial spacecraft," using it loosely when he previously speculated about "life in the cosmos" and "extraterrestrial spacecraft in disk form."

Webner concludes by stating that Hoffmann's explanations for the Apollo 11 lights are contradictory. He clarifies that he distinguished between NASA films and NASA photos. He dismisses Hoffmann's photographic skills and his tendency to use the term "defamation" when confronted with facts. Webner also criticizes Hoffmann for submitting photos to individuals like Mr. Kaminski or Zeisswerke for "re-examination" as a form of UFO research.

Webner denies withholding NASA photo registration numbers, stating he is not obligated to help Hoffmann if he doesn't know them. He maintains that his goal was solely to correct publicly stated falsehoods. He accuses Hoffmann of fabricating stories by taking them from other sources without thorough research, a practice he calls "sensationalism."

Finally, Webner emphasizes that CENAP and its colleagues are continuously and extensively researching the UFO phenomenon, analyzing costly material and running numerous research programs. He states that if UFOlogists cannot keep up with this level of research, the fault lies not with CENAP but with their own lack of rigor. He concludes that the UFO scene is not about facts but about occult beliefs in miracles.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the debunking of UFO claims, particularly those involving photographic evidence and historical accounts. The magazine strongly advocates for rigorous, fact-based research and critical analysis, contrasting this with what it perceives as sensationalism and unfounded speculation within the UFOlogy community. The editorial stance is one of skepticism towards extraordinary claims and a commitment to exposing hoaxes and misinterpretations, particularly concerning NASA's space program and alleged alien encounters. The publication positions itself as a source of factual information against what it views as the "occult beliefs" driving much of UFO research.

This issue of CENAP, identified as CR 59 and dated January 28, 1981, focuses on a critical stance towards the ufology community and the media's portrayal of UFO phenomena. It also includes a film review.

Editorial Stance and Criticisms of Ufology

The editorial section strongly criticizes the ufology scene, describing it as a "massive self-deception" that is "widely exploited by the media." The author laments that the UFO topic will remain stagnant for decades unless sensationalized "adventure stories" are presented with appropriate commentary. The issue highlights a specific incident involving an ufologist named Herr Fisch, who expressed his frustration with UFO sects pressuring him to publish their material, stating that he only did so because he had a magazine to sell. Fisch reportedly dismissed claims of NASA hiding UFO evidence, stating that the material sent was not significant and that he himself possessed some of the supposedly secret documents.

The magazine calls for readers to submit only self-researched cases to the "M 2000 Redaktion" and demands an end to "ufology censorship" that allegedly favors sensationalism while suppressing background investigations.

The "Helzer Case" Dispute

A significant portion of the issue is dedicated to a dispute concerning the "Helzer Case," a UFO encounter in Bavaria. CENAP had published a report on this case in CR 59, which was a reaction to a typical UFO Nachrichten report by M.H. CENAP's final assessment was based on their own findings, correspondence, and a questionnaire completed by Frau Holzer, the witness. Frau Holzer reportedly mentioned her prior interest in "esoteric and fringe science" matters, suggesting psychological factors might influence her perception of the encounter.

This report apparently provoked a strong reaction from an ufologist identified as M.H. In a letter dated January 20, 1981, M.H. accused CENAP of "conscious misleading of your readers" and threatened legal action, citing press laws that allegedly obligate the publication to print a counter-statement (Gegendarstellung) unedited. M.H. expressed concern about the damage to Frau Holzer's reputation and her "absolutely authentic 'close encounter'." He argued that presenting two opinions on a topic is democratic and that he knew of two lawyers who confirmed CENAP's legal obligation.

CENAP responded by submitting the matter to the DEUTSCHER PRESSERAT (German Press Council). In a letter dated February 2, 1981, the Press Council informed CENAP that they could not provide legal advice but noted that the requested counter-statement was not formally correct and therefore not subject to mandatory publication. The letter included a brochure on "Principles for Handling Counter-Statement Claims."

Werner Walter, identified as CENAP-Staff, declared the matter closed for CENAP, stating that a "completely new wind" would now blow through the UFO landscape, leaving behind "childishness and half-hearted opinions" and those who hinder research.

Film Review: "Close Encounters of the Third Kind"

The issue also features a film review by Wolf Kohl of Steven Spielberg's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind." The review notes that the film, originally released in 1977, was met with unfavorable criticism, with some reviewers comparing it unfavorably to older, lower-budget science fiction films like "It Came from Outer Space." The initial plot summary describes an UFO attack that disrupts an electricity plant, causes passenger planes to disappear, and involves the abduction of a young boy, before a French scientist (played by Francois Truffaut) establishes peaceful contact with the aliens.

Despite the initial negative critical reception, the film became a major financial success, ranking among the top ten highest-grossing American films of all time. The review argues that, four years later and after numerous less impressive productions like "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" imitations, Spielberg's film is now recognized as one of the most cohesive, imaginative, and technically brilliant films in the genre.

The review highlights the film's re-release in cinemas, featuring five new minutes of footage. These additions include scenes of Claude Lacombe searching in India for a communication key with the UFOs and a large ship discovered in the desert. Most significantly, the new scenes offer a glimpse inside the alien spacecraft, which the reviewer describes as "the most beautiful and bizarrely imaginative scenes in a science-fiction film seen to date." The review concludes that the film has lost none of its fascination and is even more exciting today than at its premiere.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical examination of ufology as a field prone to self-deception and media manipulation, the importance of journalistic integrity and the right to publish counter-arguments, and the appreciation of well-crafted science fiction cinema. The editorial stance is clearly skeptical of sensationalist ufology and advocates for a more grounded, critical approach to the subject, while also recognizing and celebrating cinematic achievements in the genre.