CENAP-REPORT

Magazine Overview

Title: CENAP-REPORT
Issue: Nr.100
Volume/Date: 9J/H6/84 (June 1984)
Publisher: CENAP (centrales erforschungsnetz außergewöhnlicher phänomene)
Country: Germany
Language: German

This issue of the CENAP-REPORT, titled "Fotos entstammen der bisher unveröffentlichten kritischen wissenschaftlich orientierten Fotodokumentation 'WESEN AUS DEM WELTRAUM?' von Klaus Webner," delves into the controversial Trindade UFO incident of 1958. The cover features a striking image split between a hand pointing at a mountain and a UFO in a similar landscape, with the headline "Glaube macht sehend !?" (Does belief make one see!?). The report aims to present critical, scientifically oriented photographic documentation.

The Trindade, Brazil, 1958 Incident: A UFO Classic

This extensive article, authored by Werner Walter, a CENAP-Staff member, examines the 1958 UFO sighting near Trindade Island, Brazil. Walter emphasizes the significant impact of photographic evidence in UFOlogy, arguing that photos can provide more convincing proof than mere verbal accounts. He criticizes the tendency to elevate frequently published photos to the status of authentic proof, especially when accompanied by incomplete or falsified information.

The Trindade case is presented as a "key case" that was allegedly presented to the German federal government as an "official photo series of the Brazilian Navy." Investigations by the Brazilian Navy's hydrographic institute and photolaboratory, as well as an aerial photo interpretation service in Rio de Janeiro, reportedly concluded that the object had a diameter of 40 meters and a height of 8 meters, with a flight speed of 900-1000 km/h. This data was allegedly confirmed by a Ground Saucer Watch Wundercomputer under the direction of Dipl.-Ing. Willy Spaulding.

The article traces the reporting of the incident in German UFO publications. UFO NACHRICHTEN Nr. 20 (April 1958) and the WESTDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG (February 24, 1958) reported on the story, which originated from leading Brazilian newspapers. The photos depicted a Saturn-shaped object with a ring, photographed from the deck of the naval ship "Almirante Saldanha" during its deployment for the Geophysical Year. The photos were developed in the presence of the ship's commander and later classified as "secret" by the Navy Ministry before being released. Several naval officers reportedly witnessed the UFO.

Brazilian Government: UFOs Exist

UN 59 (July 1961) published the photos with the caption "New Evidence for UFOs." This was based on a report by Dr. O. T. Fontes. The article highlights the shift in the Brazilian government's stance due to UFO observations by the Brazilian Navy near Trindade Island. The Brazilian Navy authorities and Congress reportedly engaged with these findings, leading to an affirmation of UFO existence. While the full article by Dr. Fontes could not be reproduced, its significance is emphasized.

Details of the Trindade Sightings

The report details seven specific sightings mentioned in a secret Navy report:

1. End of November 1957: An object remained stationary for three hours, observed with a theodolite and a 20x telescope.
2. December 5, 1957 (8 AM): A silver-shining object moved silently at an altitude of approximately 1800 meters.
3. December 31, 1957 (7:50 AM): Nine witnesses, including the station commander, observed an object.
4. January 1, 1958: A 90° flight path at high speed was observed by the entire garrison.
5. January 2, 1958: An object circled a Navy ship, performing seemingly impossible maneuvers.
6. January 6, 1958: A UFO allegedly abducted a weather balloon under the cover of clouds, observed with optical instruments.
7. January 16, 1958: A UFO appeared low over the horizon, described as polished aluminum, shaped like a flattened sphere with a large, rapidly rotating ring around its equator. It emitted a greenish glow. This UFO was photographed by a Navy sergeant. The resulting image was compared to four other photos taken aboard the "Almirante Saldanha." On this ship, a civilian tasked with seabed research, Almiro Barauna (a photographer), witnessed an object moving in a zig-zag pattern over a mountain peak at extreme speed. He took four photos of the object.

Official Statements and Release of Photos

The censorship imposed by the Brazilian Navy was reportedly broken by the Brazilian President himself. After receiving prints and enlargements of the UFO photos from the Navy Minister, he showed them to a friend associated with the newspaper "Correio de Manha." This led to their publication in that newspaper and "O Jornal," causing a significant public impact. The photos were sharp enough to show an unknown flying object and were acknowledged as authentic by the Navy. However, the Navy issued a weak report that contradicted earlier statements.

Admiral Gerson de Macedo Soares, Secretary General of the Navy, stated in an interview with "O Globo" that he saw no reason to doubt the reports of reliable witnesses and personally believed in the reality of UFOs, even if they came from another planet. The Navy Minister, Admiral Alves Cavera, told United Press on February 24, 1958, that he had previously not believed in flying saucers but was convinced by Mr. Barauna's photographic evidence. The Brazilian government, compelled by the undeniable evidence, eventually admitted the existence of these unidentified objects, stating they could not be identified.

Almiro Barauna confirmed that the negatives were not faked and were developed in the presence of the commander. He was not pressured to hand over the negatives. The photographs were examined and found to be genuine by the photographic laboratory of the Navy and a well-equipped laboratory in South America. Barauna was asked to keep the matter secret until the Navy granted permission for publication.

Further Analysis and International Recognition

In March 1969, UN 151 featured a press release by Major a.D. Colman VonKeviczky, presenting a global analysis of "identified space objects" as a supplementary study to the Condon Report, including the Trindade case. Dr. H. Bühler, in UN 155 (June 1969), argued in his report "Politicians Deny Existence of UFOs" that the Trindade disk photo proved UFOs were extraterrestrial craft. He noted that the object was not detected by the ship's radar, despite being only 14 km away. Furthermore, other electrical equipment on the ship, including engines, compasses, and radios, reportedly failed simultaneously, suggesting strong magnetic forces of millions of Gauss. The doctor explained the object's ability to cover vast distances in seconds by its speed of 70,000 km/h, and its sudden stop was attributed to extraterrestrial technology.

Dr. Bühler presented his findings in Stuttgart on July 26, 1966, noting that UFOs were a known fact in Brazil but surprisingly unknown in West Germany. He stated that when the UFO flew over the ship, all electrical systems, compasses, and radios ceased functioning. The responsible Admiral admitted to the photographer that such objects had been photographed multiple times near the island. The photo was developed under supervision to prevent fraud, and the Admiralitat publicly confirmed the authenticity of the photos, though they could not explain what the objects were.

Frank Edwards, in his book "Fliegende Untertassen-eine Realität," also cited the Trindade case. UFO-Baron Johannes Freiherr Treusch von Buttlar-Brandenfels discussed the case in "Schneller als das Licht," describing how the object stopped near numbered positions and then moved northeast after circling the island's radar installations. He also detailed the event in "Das UFO Phänomen," stating that Almiro Barauna, a specialist in underwater photography, was taking photos when the crew shouted "Ohla,o disco" (Look, a disc!). Approximately 300 people on board saw the disc, and six photos were taken. The photos were released as "absolutely genuine" by the Flottenadmiral and Chief of the Navy High Command, Antonio Maria de Carvalho, who stated that the crew confirmed the object's identity with what they had seen in the air.

Analysis of the Photographs

The article includes an image of the "Almirante Saldanha" and a map of Trindade Island showing the object's trajectory. NICAP reportedly considered the photos "appear to be authentic." Ronald D. Story's "The Encyclopedia of UFOs" describes Trindade as a small, deserted rocky island in the South Atlantic. During World War II, it served as a base for US and Brazilian warships. In 1957, it was chosen for an oceanographic and meteorological station for the International Geophysical Year (IGY). The "Almirante Saldanha," a former training cruiser, was used by the Navy's Hydrography and Navigatin Division for IGY research. Several civilians were invited to observe the scientific studies.

Almiro Barauna, a photographer and former "free journalist," was among the civilians. He was an expert in underwater photography. On January 16, 1958, at 12:15 PM, while preparing to depart, a mysterious object was observed by multiple people on deck. The UFO flew over the island at high speed, hovered briefly over a peak, disappeared behind it, and reappeared before heading out to sea. Barauna photographed the ship's maneuvers and the UFO.

An interview with Barauna by reporter Joao Martins of "O CRUZEIRO" newspaper (March 8, 1958) revealed details about the sighting. Barauna could not confirm hearing any unusual sounds due to the noise of the waves. He described the object as dark gray, seemingly surrounded by a condensation of greenish, phosphorescent vapor. He confirmed he kept the negatives and was not pressured to hand them over. After the ship returned to Rio, Commander Bacellar visited Barauna to request the prints and enlargements for the Navy. These were returned, and Barauna was asked to appear at the Navy Ministry for questioning.

Barauna stated that while four other people had cameras, only he took pictures of the UFO. The article also questions the solidity of the photos, comparing them to Alexander Birch's alleged UFO paintings. It notes that the upper and lower halves of the object's dome appear dissimilar and not hemispherical. The object sometimes appears blurry even with a telephoto lens, while at other times it is clearly visible against the background. The author wonders why these discrepancies have not been more widely discussed.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The CENAP-REPORT, through this detailed analysis of the Trindade case, emphasizes the importance of photographic evidence in UFO research while also critically examining the presentation and interpretation of such evidence. The publication appears to advocate for the reality of UFOs and criticizes official secrecy and obfuscation. The editorial stance aligns with a pro-UFO research perspective, seeking to uncover and present information that supports the existence of unidentified aerial phenomena, often highlighting government and military involvement or lack thereof.

This issue of "UFO-NACHRICHTEN", number 285, dated January 16, 1958, focuses on the controversial Trindade Island UFO sighting and the photographs taken by professional photographer Almiro Barauna. The magazine presents a detailed account of the event, the subsequent reactions from various authorities and individuals, and a strong skeptical analysis of the evidence.

The Trindade Island Incident

The central event covered is the sighting and photographic documentation of a flying object over Trindade Island, Brazil, on January 16, 1958. The photographs were taken from the deck of the ship ALMIRANTE SALDANHA. The article includes a quote from an unidentified crew member who stated with absolute certainty that the object was controlled, either directly or remotely, and that its purpose was to observe them.

Key Individuals and Their Roles

• Several individuals are identified in relation to the event:
• Almiro Barauna: The photographer who captured the sensational images. He is later revealed to be a specialist in trick photography.
• Saldanha da Gama: The commanding captain of the ALMIRANTE SALDANHA.
• Amilar Vieira Filho: Leader of an underwater hunting group who, along with Captain Viegas, discovered the object and drew Barauna's attention to it.
• Paulo Moreira da Silva: Head of the hydrographic and navigation directorate.
• Carlos Alberto Bacellar: Commander of Trindade Island, who supervised the development of Barauna's film.
• Aloisio: A member of the Icarai club for Submarine Hunting.
• Farias de Azevedo: A press photographer from "Jornal do Brazil".
• Jose Teobaldo Viegas: A former Air Force Captain and flight instructor, also a member of the Icarai club, who helped develop the film.
• Sergio Magalhaes: A Federal Deputy who sent a note to the Navy Ministry, accusing them of not obtaining sworn statements from witnesses.
• President Kubitschek: Reportedly impressed by the photos and convinced of the event's occurrence.

Official Reactions and Skepticism

Initially, the Brazilian Navy refused to comment on the incident. However, after the photos were published, they were sent to various branches of the military and to President Kubitschek. The Navy Ministry eventually issued a statement on February 24, 1958, declaring that reports about them revealing facts were baseless and that they had no reason to comment on the release of the photos, as they did not constitute sufficient proof.

The article extensively details the skeptical viewpoints, drawing from sources like Margaret Sachs' "The UFO-Encyclopedia" and the work of Donald Menzel and Lyle G. Boyd. Menzel believed the Trindade Island photos were almost certainly a hoax. He noted that sightings in the area increased after the start of weather balloon launches. Menzel and his colleague Lyle G. Boyd concluded, after the ship docked weeks later, that interviews with the crew revealed no one had actually seen the UFO, despite some claiming to have seen it from deck.

Photographic Analysis and Doubts

Concerns were raised about Barauna's background as a trick photography specialist. He had previously published a humorous article with a sensational headline about being chased by a flying saucer, accompanied by fake photos. Menzel and Boyd questioned how witnesses could identify an object barely visible on the negatives as the UFO they allegedly saw, especially since prints could not be made due to a lack of photo paper. They pointed out that the photos showed a barely discernible object, not the bright, glowing entity described by witnesses.

J. Allen Hynek, in "UFO-Report," cited Project Blaubuch documents, calling the case a trick by an "unscrupulous photographer" that the Brazilian Navy fell for. He noted the Brazilian penchant for sensation and the bureaucracy's general incompetence. The photos were described as lacking sharp details, with the object being blurry, low in contrast, and without shadows. One photo suggested the object was upside down.

Allen Hendry, a CUFOS investigator, stated that the Trindade Island case should be closed, attributing its failure not to its strangeness but to poor documentation. He suggested that the Brazilian government's pressure prevented researchers from interviewing witnesses.

Further Investigations and Theories

Werner Walter's "PROJECT UFO II" is mentioned, which investigated the case. Donald H. Menzel and Lyle G. Boyd's 1963 book, "The World of Flying Saucers," also analyzed the Trindade Island saucer, noting the storm of official inquiries that followed the photo release. Despite the initial excitement, the storm subsided, and no further explanations were given.

Skeptics like Menzel and Boyd suggested that the photos might be a clever hoax, especially given that the meteorological station on Trindade only began operating in November 1957, shortly before the alleged sightings. They noted that while UFO sightings increased, many were based on misidentifications or insufficient evidence.

Barauna himself, in an interview, stated that while he was a skilled photographer specializing in trick photography, he could not produce photos that would withstand close scrutiny. The article also mentions that the ship's radar did not detect the object, as all electrical power on board was shut off at the time.

Conclusion of the Article

The article concludes that Almiro Barauna has no connection to the Brazilian Navy and is a professional photographer specializing in trick photos. It states that no officer or seaman from the Brazilian Navy reported seeing the UFO. The two named witnesses mentioned by the photographer were friends of his, not connected to the Navy. The article asserts that Barauna had ample time and opportunity to trick the photos, suggesting methods like double exposure with a RolleiFlex camera.

The Brazilian Navy Ministry never officially recognized the photos as authentic recordings of a flying saucer. During a visit to Rio de Janeiro in February 1963, Dr. Menzel discussed the case with Brazilian astronomers, all of whom considered the Trindade saucer a hoax.

A concluding remark from a United States Intelligence Report is quoted, suggesting that a UFO sighting on such a desolate island is atypical, given that Martians are known to be comfort-loving creatures.

Robert Sheaffer, in "The UFO-Verdict, Examining the Evidence," also labels the 1958 photo series a "high-ranking UFO-classic." He notes that NICAP considered them among the "best four UFO photos" due to the twelve named witnesses. However, Sheaffer emphasizes the little-known fact that the photographer was a specialist in trick photography, questioning the coincidence of such a person being chosen to photograph a flying saucer. He reiterates that despite numerous crew members on deck, none of them actually saw the UFO.

Despite the skepticism, groups like Stanton Friedman and NICAP still consider the photos to be significant circumstantial evidence.

An interview with Almiro Barauna by Dr. Willy Smith in April 1983 is recounted. Barauna stated that opinions were divided, with six newspapers supporting him and six attacking him. He claimed the Navy kept laboratory reports under seal and denied any government or Navy attempt to suppress the story, stating he had full support from the Navy. He described the Navy's report as a physical description rather than an interpretation of the object as a spaceship or machine.

Final Analysis by CENAP

CENAP, based on its own considerations and the presented material, concludes that the Trindade photo series is a photographic fraud. The article ends with the assertion that while photos can be impressive, they can also be manipulated to influence perception more than words.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the nature of UFO evidence, the role of photography in UFOlogy, the potential for hoaxes and misidentifications, and the skepticism of official bodies and scientific investigators towards sensational claims. The editorial stance is overwhelmingly skeptical, presenting a detailed case for the Trindade Island photos being a deliberate fabrication. The magazine highlights the importance of critical analysis, background checks on photographers, and corroborating evidence from reliable witnesses. It contrasts the

This issue of UFO-Nachrichten, dated March/April 1984, is primarily a critique of a German ARD television broadcast from February 27, 1984, titled 'Unglaublich aber Wahr' (Unbelievable but True), which focused on UFOs. The magazine strongly condemns the broadcast for its perceived bias, lack of credible witnesses, and attempts to discredit the UFO phenomenon.

Critique of the ARD Broadcast

Several articles and reader letters express deep dissatisfaction with the ARD program. Karl L. Veit, a prominent figure in ufology, leads the charge, labeling the broadcast as an "inverted effort: denial and deception." He criticizes the selection of guests, stating that no genuine UFO experts were present, and that the program deliberately tried to dismiss important evidence, such as the Wiesbaden military airport sighting, by attributing it to weather balloons. Veit also laments that his own testimony and important documentation were cut from the broadcast.

Readers echo Veit's sentiments. Anny Veit describes the broadcast as "unbelievable but true" in its negative portrayal. Ing. Hans Dietrich Kortsch and Kal Fischer also provide critical assessments, highlighting the perceived unprofessionalism of the moderator and the biased nature of the discussion, which they claim was dominated by "Satan worshippers" and unqualified individuals.

Reader letters further detail the public's negative reaction. Erika Biswanger calls the broadcast "shameful" and criticizes the moderator's behavior. Peter Damaschke felt it was "highly unfair" that Veit was constantly interrupted. Many readers express outrage at the perceived attempt to "erase" UFOs from public consciousness and state their support for Veit.

Historical UFO Accounts and Analysis

Beyond the broadcast critique, the magazine includes several articles delving into UFO phenomena and related topics:

The Meaning of 'Ventla' and Flying Saucers

An article explains the term "Ventla" as originating from the book "I rode a Flying Saucer," associated with Ashtar, a commander of flying starships. It discusses the "Meaning of Flying Saucers" and their connection to a new era, the Age of Aquarius, following the Age of Pisces. The article posits that the appearance of UFOs signifies a shift in global consciousness and the intervention of higher beings.

Two Worldviews: Materialism vs. Spiritualism

This section contrasts two fundamental viewpoints regarding UFOs: materialists and skeptics who dismiss the phenomenon due to a lack of physical proof, and those who are striving for higher knowledge and intuitively grasp the reality of extraterrestrial life and contact.

The Necessity of UFO Literature

This piece emphasizes the importance of UFO literature, particularly referencing messages from Ashtar received by E. P. H. It highlights Ashtar's assurance of support for the dissemination of information about flying saucers.

Landings of Planetarians are a Fact!!

This article asserts that planetarians have established bases on Earth, particularly in Antarctica. It mentions M. W. Smith, former head of the Canadian Observatory, who has communicated with these beings via radio. The article also claims that a third artificial satellite orbits Earth, in addition to the Moon being occupied by extraterrestrial beings.

Quo Vadis Humanitas? (Where are you going, Humanity?)

This reflective piece discusses the state of humanity eleven years after World War II, lamenting ongoing conflicts, the failure to compensate war victims, and the focus on rearmament over social welfare. It touches upon issues of refugees, societal decay, bureaucracy, envy, and the rise of materialism. The author suggests that humanity must learn a new path, one that leads back to God, but acknowledges that this path is currently obscured.

Trindade Island Photographs

A significant portion of the magazine is dedicated to the analysis of photographs taken of a UFO over Trindade Island. The article presents a compilation of photos, likely the only ones of their kind, showing the object's trajectory. It notes an inaccuracy in the accompanying map regarding the object's placement in the photographs and mentions that the photomontage was performed by Henrik Pedersen.

San Jose de Valderas = UMMO?

This section presents a concluding report on an alleged landing site in San Jose de Valderas, featuring images of 'UFO imprints' in the ground.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critique of mainstream media's handling of UFO topics, the assertion of the reality of UFOs and extraterrestrial contact, and the promotion of a spiritual or higher-consciousness perspective. The editorial stance is clearly pro-UFO, advocating for the acceptance of these phenomena and criticizing those who dismiss them. The magazine positions itself as a source of truth and enlightenment against what it perceives as widespread ignorance and deliberate misinformation.

This issue of UFO-NYT, specifically issue number 4 from 1983, delves into various UFO-related cases with a critical and analytical approach. The magazine, published by CENAP, features articles that scrutinize alleged evidence, question the validity of certain sightings, and explore the scientific and investigative aspects of UFO phenomena. The cover story, "Rätselhaftes Rendezvous am Nachmittag," highlights a case from France that baffled scientists.

Analysis of the UMMO Object

The issue begins with an analysis of an object received from Mr. Lleget, which was sent to a Spanish institute for technical, air, and space research. The analysis revealed the object's metal to be nickel and the plastic strip to be 'Tedlar,' a material known for its excellent heat resistance but not readily available commercially. This led to the conclusion that the 'UFO evidence' was terrestrial. Subsequently, the Ground Saucer Watch (GSW) conducted computer-aided photographic analysis. GSW received first-generation photo prints from the original negatives and produced high-resolution enlargements. These images showed a disk-shaped object with a peculiar symbol. The analysis focused on image enhancement techniques, including edge enhancement, color contrast, digitization considering grain distance, and data processing for high resolution.

Through detailed computer analysis, including cursor lines to determine form and substance, it was revealed that the object was flat. The only part with a profile was a dark symbol on its surface. Further digital density measurements indicated low light intensity and weak reflections. Grain measurement suggested the object was very close to the camera. Advanced computer programs analyzing luminosity distributions and cursor profiles indicated the object strongly resembled an inverted paper plate with a painted symbol, measuring less than 20 cm in diameter. The camera was positioned close to the ground to create an illusion of height and distance from the witness. Edge enhancement revealed a linear structure consistent with a suspension thread. The sharpness of the grain edges indicated the object's proximity. The article concludes that these photos were likely staged to create a UFO event and emphasizes the need to expose UFO hoaxes to ensure serious UFO research yields objective results.

The Danish UFO Photo Case

The magazine then presents a case involving a photograph taken by amateur photographer Morten Them Pedersen on April 26, 1981, near Brunddragerne on Lolland's south coast. After developing the film, Pedersen discovered a triangular object on the negatives that he had not seen during the actual photo session. He sent a print to SUFOI for analysis. A thorough analysis required the original negatives. SUFOI's photo consultant, Hans Bødker, reported that the photographer used an Ilford FP4 black-and-white film and likely developed it at home. The film showed significant damage, with numerous scratches and spots on the emulsion layer. Negatives 35 and 36 were cited as clear examples, showing a dark triangle with a circle inside, comparable to the object in image 38. Similar formations appeared on other images, often on sand dunes or near grass. The speculation of a 'flying object' arose only with image 38 due to its apparent random appearance over a body of water. These formations had a similar shape and likely originated from the same cause. A brownish discoloration was noted on all 'UFO' negatives, suggesting external heat exposure, possibly from sparks during development.

SUFOI's conclusion was that the objects were not actually photographed but were likely artifacts created by light and heat influences on the film during development, possibly from sparks or similar events when the film was not in the camera.

The Greenlandic UFO Photo Case

Another case discussed involves photos taken by a conscript in February 1977 at Flottenstation Grønnedal, Greenland. While photographing the Northern Lights, he captured images that included the watchroom and the Kungnat mountains. One of the images (Negative Nr. 41) shows the watchroom and the Northern Lights. A graphical panorama of negatives 41, 42, and 43 depicts the Northern Lights over Grønnedal with the mountains in the background. Image 42, in particular, shows an interesting object. The object is described as an interesting, ellipse-shaped dark formation in the center of the image, with the Northern Lights as a background. The article notes that the photographer exposed the photos for about a minute each, consistent with the faint stars visible due to Earth's rotation. A double image effect was observed on all three negatives, possibly due to an internal mirror in the lens or a filter. A strong magnification of the dark shadow revealed an elliptical shape, sharp in the north-south direction but blurred east-west. This sharpness in the north-south direction aligned with the rest of the photo, suggesting it was within the focal plane. The east-west blur was attributed to the object's movement during exposure. The photographer had called the watch officer, but the object had already vanished. The article suggests that the 'UFO object' was in the foreground, far in front of the Northern Lights, appearing as a shadow against them. It must have moved considerably before disappearing. The photo compilation indicates that image 41 was taken from a different point than 42 and 43, evidenced by the star movement over the chimney. The movements were in opposite directions. Images 42 and 43 were taken from the same point. Unfortunately, no further information from SUFOI questionnaires or camera/photographic technique data was available. The SUFOI photo department's assessment concluded that the object was a lens-shaped cloud, known as Altocumulus lenticularis, which forms in turbulent air masses over uneven terrain, common in Greenland. This cloud type has a relatively long lifespan and is often photographed, leading to its characteristic lens shape being associated with UFOs.

The Renato Nicolai Case: A "Mysterious Rendezvous in the Afternoon"

This section details the case of Renato Nicolai, a mason from Trans-en-Provence, France, who claimed to have witnessed a "flying saucer" on January 8, 1981. The incident was officially recognized after a three-year investigation. Nicolai reported that the object landed about fifty meters away in his garden, between two pine trees. He approached the "thing," which then rose three meters high and two meters wide before disappearing into the sky. His wife, Jeanne, reported the incident to a neighbor, who informed the local gendarme. The gendarmerie's special unit, "Gepan," which investigates unexplained aerial phenomena, became involved. Although initially suspected to be a weather balloon, the case prompted a thorough investigation. Experts collected soil samples, conducted air analyses, and gathered plant specimens from Nicolai's garden. These samples were sent to the National Institute for Agronomic Research in Avignon. After more than two years of analysis, scientists and technicians compiled a report that astonished the institute's director, Dr. Bounias. For the first time, his subordinates concluded that the chemical and physical changes observed at the site were scientifically inexplicable. The report was kept secret initially, and the results were sent to half a dozen other laboratories, all of which provided the same answer: inexplicable. Independently, the scientists determined that the leaves were completely dried out without any signs of heat exposure. Grasses showed unknown mutations, alfalfa plants had altered pigmentation, and soil samples indicated chemical changes requiring at least 600 degrees Celsius of heat. Dr. Bounias and his team admitted that these findings exceeded scientific explanations. The extensive investigation report concluded that a "significant event" had occurred in Renato Nicolai's garden, for which there was no "clear explanation." Nicolai considered this a triumph, interpreting the cautious scientific wording as official recognition. He regretted not getting closer to the "flying saucer," speculating that its occupants might have been afraid of him.

This report is based on an article from the newspaper "DIE WELT" dated January 10, 1984, and a press release from "MIDI LIBRE" on January 4th. The technical report Nr. 18 from GEPAN, titled "Investigation 81/01: Analysis of a Trace," also confirms a "phenomenon of great magnitude" observed by Nicolai. The analysis of traces, soil, and fauna was conducted by laboratories in Toulouse, Metz, and Avignon. However, the exact circumstances of these effects remain scientifically undetermined. The testimony of the sole witness, who reported the arrival of an unidentified object at approximately 5 PM, its landing, and its departure after 30-40 seconds, cannot be doubted.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue of UFO-NYT adopts a skeptical yet investigative stance towards UFO phenomena. It emphasizes the importance of rigorous scientific analysis and the exposure of hoaxes to advance genuine UFO research. The articles critically examine photographic evidence, suggesting that many alleged sightings can be explained by natural phenomena, photographic artifacts, or deliberate fabrications. The magazine highlights cases where scientific investigation yielded inconclusive or inexplicable results, such as the Renato Nicolai case, while also providing rational explanations for others, like the UMMO object and the Danish/Greenlandic photo cases. The underlying message is that while unexplained phenomena may exist, a critical and evidence-based approach is crucial, and the field of UFOlogy should not be dominated by unsubstantiated claims or wishful thinking. The editorial stance appears to favor demystifying UFO reports and promoting objective research over sensationalism.

This issue of 'OVNI : la preuve par Trans?' (UFO: The Proof by Trans?) from July 1983, published by LE PARISIEN as part of its '24 heures' section, focuses on two significant events in ufology: the Trans-en-Provence sighting and the Cergy-Pontoise abduction hoax. The magazine presents detailed accounts, investigations, and analyses, aiming to shed light on these phenomena.

The Trans-en-Provence Case

The central article details the sighting by Renato Nicolai, a 52-year-old mason, on January 5, 1981, near Draguignan. Nicolai reported observing an object that descended like a stone, landed softly about 50 meters away, and then took off rapidly after 30-40 seconds with a whistling sound. The object was described as matte grey, round, approximately 2.5 meters in diameter and 2 meters high. The incident, initially reported by OUEST FRANCE, was later investigated by GEPAN (Groupe d'Étude des Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non identifiés), a CNES (Centre National d'Études Spatiales) entity.

GEPAN's technical report, released in March 1983, confirmed the event as a 'phenomenon of great magnitude.' Analyses of soil and plant samples collected by the gendarmerie and GEPAN investigators revealed unusual effects. The ground within the circular track left by the object was pressed down several centimeters, suggesting significant mechanical pressure and heating. Plant pigments were altered, and magnesium levels in cell nuclei changed, with some areas of vegetation being dry but not burnt. Despite these findings, GEPAN scientists refrained from proposing specific hypotheses, emphasizing the need for rigorous scientific investigation.

Further details emerge from other articles. One notes that the GEPAN investigation, which had been ongoing since 1973, was taken seriously by its director, Herr Velaco. Michel Bounias, a researcher from INRA (Institut national de la recherche agronomique), examined soil samples and noted curious changes in nearby plants, including dry leaves and altered chlorophyll pigments. He also observed changes in magnesium content within cell nuclei, noting that these effects diminished with distance from the landing spot. Bounias concluded that the event left biochemical traces. The soil analysis indicated strong mechanical pressure, suggesting a massive object. Nicolai described the object as having the shape of two stacked plates.

Jean-Pierre Petit, a research director at CNRS, is mentioned for his hypothesis that UFO propulsion might be based on Magneto-Hydro-Dynamics (MHD). This theory suggests that MHD devices could generate immense energy, enabling astonishing speeds without sonic booms. Petit views this as a potential avenue for understanding UFO phenomena.

The magazine also highlights the role of ufological groups like GHREPA (Groupement haut-rhinois d'étude des phénomènes aerospatiaux) in Alsace. These groups focus on observing the sky, collecting testimonies, and conducting systematic investigations. They use tools like color charts and pocket goniometers to document observations, aiming for scientific rigor. The Alsace region itself is considered a favorable zone for UFO observations, with GHREPA having compiled a list of unusual phenomena recorded between 1975 and 1982.

The Cergy-Pontoise Hoax

In stark contrast to the Trans-en-Provence case, the issue thoroughly debunks the alleged alien abduction of Franck Fontaine in Cergy-Pontoise. An article from LE PARISIEN dated July 1983 reveals that the entire event, which had gained significant media attention and even led to a book by Jimmy Guieu and coverage by Jean-Claude Bourret, was a fabrication.

Jean-Pierre Prévost, identified as a friend and accomplice of Fontaine, confessed that he orchestrated the entire affair. He stated, "I organized everything, I put it all together. I can prove it." Prévost admitted that Fontaine spent the eight days of his supposed abduction in an apartment in Pontoise, and that Prévost himself drove him there and back. He explained that the motive was to gain attention and money, noting that people were losing interest in traditional religions and needed a new form of support, which he believed extraterrestrials could provide.

Prévost's confession came after a significant delay, as he had to wait four years due to legal proceedings for judicial deception. The gendarmerie had initially suspected a hoax, noting the absence of burnt grass or unusual radioactivity at the alleged abduction site. GEPAN's report also mentioned the fanciful nature of Fontaine's and his friends' accounts. Prévost's statement unequivocally declared the Cergy-Pontoise case a "hundred percent fraud."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine adopts a critical and investigative approach to ufology. It distinguishes between genuine phenomena requiring scientific study, such as the Trans-en-Provence case, and deliberate hoaxes like the Cergy-Pontoise incident. The editorial stance emphasizes the importance of rigorous methodology, scientific analysis, and skepticism, particularly in distinguishing between credible evidence and sensationalism. The articles highlight the challenges faced by ufological research, including the need for caution, the tendency for witnesses to exaggerate, and the 'wall of silence' from official scientific bodies. The issue underscores the ongoing efforts of organizations like GEPAN and independent research groups to bring scientific rigor to the study of unexplained aerial phenomena, while also exposing fraudulent claims that can mislead the public.

This issue of CENAP-ARCHIV, titled "„Ufos“ und „Ifos" am Freiburger Himmel?" (UFOs and IFOS in the Freiburg Sky?), dated June 1, 1984, focuses on the work of the Freiburg UFO working group (GREPHA) and broader UFO research in Germany and France. The magazine highlights the group's commitment to seriousness and skepticism in investigating UFO phenomena.

GREPHA's Approach and Investigations

The article introduces the GREPHA (Groupe d'Études et de Recherches sur les Phénomènes Aériens Anormaux), a UFO research group based in Freiburg, Germany. The group meets bi-weekly to discuss newspaper reports, their own organ, and personal experiences. The president of GREPHA, Jacques Journeu, is quoted emphasizing a skeptical approach, stating, "We remain skeptical under all circumstances! And we proceed from the principle that the witness or witnesses may have been mistaken." GREPHA aims to gather facts and avoid speculation, distinguishing between 'UFOs' (Unidentified Flying Objects) and 'PNI' (Phénomènes Non Identifiés - Unidentified Phenomena), with Journeu preferring the latter for its broader applicability.

GREPHA conducted approximately 20 investigations between November 1975 and January 1982, averaging three per year. Journeu expresses concern that the group is not always informed about events, relying on press reports or connections to become aware of sightings. The group's work is characterized as simple fact-finding without letting imagination run wild.

UFOs, UAPs, and the Nature of Phenomena

The magazine discusses the distinction between 'UFOs' and 'UAPs' (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena). While CENAP initially promoted the term UAP for inexplicable occurrences, they now acknowledge that even these might have natural explanations. This perspective suggests a shift in understanding, moving the UFO phenomenon from a purely scientific subject to a socio-scientific one, requiring a revision of assumptions based on new evidence. The publication notes that in recent years, there have been no genuine UFO classifications according to their research, meaning all reported phenomena have been identified within normal, mundane explanations.

International Perspectives and Cooperation

Information from the French UFO scene is presented, including the activities of CEPS/CENAP under Gilbert Schmitz in Luxembourg. The goal is to foster better understanding between France, Luxembourg, and Germany regarding UFO research. The article highlights a significant knowledge gap, with German UFO research lacking information about French movements and vice versa. This lack of mutual understanding is seen as an issue that needs to change.

Media Sensationalism and Criticism

The issue criticizes media sensationalism surrounding UFOs, particularly referencing an ARD television broadcast titled "UNGLAUBLICH, aber WAHR?" (Unbelievable, but True?). The article laments that the broadcast, along with boulevard press and figures like sect leader K. L. Veit, presented a sensationalized and inaccurate portrayal of UFO research, ignoring modern, critical approaches. The GONG magazine is also mentioned for its coverage, with a critique of its approach to certain cases, suggesting a tendency to favor certain organizations or interpretations.

Specific Cases and Investigations

Several specific cases are mentioned:

• An elliptical "flying saucer" with blue and green lights seen in Weckolsheim.
• Witness accounts of "balls of light."
• The GREPHA group's investigations from 1975 to 1982.
• UFO photographer Manfred Saier's claim of filming an invisible spaceship near St. Peter in August 1983.
• An older ufologist's sighting of a "double-globe UFO" near Hochfirst in February 1982.
• Christian Lauermann's experience with a "metallic object" in the Pyrenees in August 1975.
• A report from Hemer about an unknown flying object moving across the night sky.
• A case involving a 14-year-old boy in Jülich who reported an "unknown flying object."

The Lüdenscheid group, represented by Hans-Werner Peininger and Gerald Mosbleck, who have been researching unknown phenomena since 1972, state that most reported sightings are later explained as weather balloons or meteorites. However, they are investigating the Hemer case due to a lack of precise information.

The "Conspiracy of Banalization"

A significant theme is the perceived "conspiracy of banalization" by authorities like the CIA, KGB, NATO, and the Bundeswehr, who are accused of hiding their experiences with UFOs from the public. This is framed as a "cosmic Watergate."

CENAP's Stance and Future Plans

CENAP reaffirms its belief in the existence of a UFO phenomenon as a cultural aspect of civilization. However, they distinguish between this phenomenon and the idea of physical visitors in machines. They suggest that the UFO phenomenon might serve as a directional arrow, prompting societal changes in thinking. CENAP plans to present its updated work statistics in the next report and will remove cases with insufficient information from statistical evaluations. They also mention ongoing correspondence regarding the release of UFO material from British archives.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical investigation of UFO phenomena, the importance of factual evidence over speculation, the critique of media sensationalism, and the exploration of the socio-cultural aspects of the UFO phenomenon. The editorial stance is clearly one of skepticism towards sensational claims, a commitment to rigorous research, and a desire for greater transparency and understanding within the UFO research community, both domestically and internationally. The magazine advocates for a nuanced approach, distinguishing between genuine unexplained phenomena and misidentifications or hoaxes.