CENAP Report - No 101

Magazine Overview

Title: CENAP-REPORT
Issue: Nr. 101
Date: May 19, 1984
Publisher: CENAP (Centrales Erforschungsnetz Außergewöhnlicher Phänomene)
Country: Germany
Language: German

This issue of CENAP-REPORT, Nr. 101, dated May 19, 1984, is primarily focused on UFO-related investigations and documents, with a significant emphasis on alleged government secrecy and international inquiries.

Exclusive British Ministry of Defence Files

The cover prominently announces "EXCLUSIVE IN THIS ISSUE! SECRET FILES OF THE BRITISH MINISTRY OF DEFENCE." This suggests a major exposé of classified information related to UFOs originating from the British government.

Letter from New York: ICUFON's Perspective

A letter from Major Ret. Colman S. VonKeviczky, Director of ICUFON, addressed to "UFO Pope" Werner Walter, offers a critical and somewhat sarcastic commentary on Walter's previous statements and the perceived lack of concrete evidence for flying saucers. VonKeviczky mentions Walter's "secret studies of released UFO documents" and a CENAP-Report article titled "NO EVIDENCE FOR FLYING SAUCERS." He humorously notes that the US General Staff almost resigned and that President Reagan considered resigning. The letter also touches upon alleged CIA agents infiltrating CENAP and Pentagon evidence contradicting itself when handled by Walter. It references a "world-shaking revelation" by Walter in the Bielefelder Welt-Tageblatt, implying his influence is waning.

VonKeviczky also warns Walter about potential scrutiny from "KLV-Dűsenjäger" (air defense hunters) over Wiesbaden, humorously suggesting he might be shot down and reincarnated as "UFO/IFO GULASCH."

ICUFON Chief in Austria: Austrian Government Interest

This section details Michael Hesemann's (ICUFON Chief in Austria) communications with CENAP representatives Roland Gehardt and Hansjürgen Köhler. Hesemann claims to be the only independent figure willing to engage with CENAP. He asserts that his memo was a decisive factor, implying that CENAP was invited to Bonn because they were considered more credible. Hesemann states that they have "full access" and mentions a police photo of a landed UFO in Austria, for which they are seeking release. He notes that Austria lacks a Freedom of Information Act.

Hesemann also claims access to Austrian Air Force surveillance coordination, files on UFO sightings by jet pilots, and the Foreign Ministry's preparations for contact with extraterrestrials. He expresses skepticism about Bonn's involvement, suggesting CENAP might have been "made into useful idiots."

Further communication from Hesemann to Gehardt emphasizes the confidentiality of his information about Vienna, stating that only a letter from M. Pucher can be published externally, while other details are for internal use. He suggests that various states' armed forces, including Austria, have concluded that "they know more than we Sunday researchers!"

Colman VonKeviczky also informed CENAP in March 1984 that the Austrian Ministry of Defence is "very interested in our HEAVY DOCUMENTS!!!!!!"

Official Austrian Responses

Two official letters from Austrian ministries are included. The first, from the German Embassy in Vienna dated January 13, 1984, forwards the addresses of the Austrian Federal Ministries for Defence and Foreign Affairs to Roland Gehardt, advising him to contact them directly.

The second letter, from the Austrian Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs dated February 13, 1984, addressed to Roland Gehardt, states that they are conducting "no research in the field you mentioned" and refers him to other departments for further inquiries.

A letter from the Austrian Federal Ministry for National Defence, dated February 14, 1984, addressed to Roland Gehardt, defines a UFO as an "unidentified flying object" in international airspace control. It clarifies that this designation remains until a state agency identifies it as a specific aircraft. The ministry states that there is no collection of special UFO files, and UFOs are handled according to the general definition. Regarding an alleged photo of a landed spacecraft, the ministry states "nothing is known here." They also deny the existence of a working group within the Ministry for Foreign Affairs tasked with preparing for contact with extraterrestrials, despite Hesemann's claims.

Project "DIOGENES" in the USA

This section describes "Project DIOGENES: A Simulated Search for the Unknown," presented by Dan Lowenski at an SBI symposium in Albany, New York, in 1983. The project aims to simulate UFO crash investigations, termed "Crashed Saucer Syndrome" (CSS). The 'Scientific Bureau of Investigation' (SBI) planned a training seminar in New York City for physical trace evaluation and UFO investigation techniques. A key component is a "crash recovery exercise" involving a simulated crashed UFO. The SBI's 'Bureau of UFO Investigation' in Gloversville, New York, specialized in training for the recovery of crashed saucers, using models. The Diogenes simulator is an 8-meter diameter, 3-meter high structure with electronic systems to simulate light phenomena and sounds of crashed UFOs. A cockpit features a simulated alien based on witness accounts.

The project was developed to enable a rapid response team (C.O.S.T. - Crashed Object Search Team) to support the existing SBI REACTION TEAM in such incidents. A humanoid model was created in January 1981 based on descriptions of alien beings. In May 1981, an 8-meter UFO model was approved. Between May 1981 and November 1982, the UFO was planned and constructed. The first exercise took place on November 7, 1982, assuming a NORAD UFO detection and subsequent crash on November 5, 1982. The report details how SBI would be informed and dispatch investigators. An operations manual is to be created to guide the handling of crashed saucers.

Information on obtaining a brochure about "UFOs: Past, Present & Future" from the SBI is provided, costing $11.50.

Hessdalen Phenomena Revisited

This article revisits the phenomena in Hessdalen, Norway, suggesting it might be a plasma phenomenon, not caused by geological circumstances. The author notes that many reported sightings are misinterpretations of stars, planets, aircraft, meteors, etc. The unexplained cases might be attributed to plasma or ball lightning. The hypothesis that these plasma appearances are linked to seismic activity is mentioned, referencing historical accounts of "flaming shields" seen after earthquakes. NIVFO conducted investigations into the seismic and geological conditions in Hessdalen, but the results were negative. Despite this, the Hessdalen phenomena show many similarities to plasma phenomena. Witnesses describe "neon-like, slightly oval objects" moving over the FInshogda rocks. Plasma phenomena are also described in literature as "metallic balls" with a glow. The Hessdalen reports precisely describe this.

The article states that photographs from Hessdalen do not prove anything, although some are considered by NIVFO. A myth has been created around Hessdalen; initially, people sought explanations, but now (in 1984) they prefer the mystery to remain, supported by some UFO organizations. The stories in UFO magazines are becoming increasingly exaggerated.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue strongly suggests a theme of "ufological humor" and the pursuit of "extraordinary phenomena." There is a clear focus on alleged government secrecy, particularly concerning the British and Austrian ministries. The magazine appears to be critical of official denials and attempts to downplay UFO evidence, while also highlighting the efforts of private organizations like ICUFON and CENAP to uncover and disseminate information. The editorial stance seems to favor the investigation of UFOs, even if it involves simulated scenarios like Project DIOGENES, and encourages a critical examination of official statements. The Hessdalen section highlights the shift from seeking rational explanations to embracing the mystery, possibly fueled by UFO organizations.

This issue of QUEST, the official publication of the Yorkshire UFO Society (YUFOS), delves into the phenomenon of 'Nocturnal Lights' (NL) and the UK Ministry of Defence's (M.O.D.) involvement with UFO reports. The magazine highlights the high level of UFO activity in the Yorkshire region of England, contrasting it with a quieter period in the rest of the UK.

CENAP's Connection with YUFOS

The article notes a close relationship between CENAP and YUFOS, suggesting that YUFOS provides a 'replacement' for CENAP's own PROBE team, which is no longer working publicly. This collaboration allows CENAP to publish studies from YUFOS.

The Yorkshire UFO Phenomenon: Nocturnal Lights

Yorkshire has been experiencing an unusually high number of UFO sightings, primarily reported as 'light balls' or 'Nocturnal Lights' (NL). These are often described as white or reddish-yellow spheres exhibiting unusual maneuvers that no conventional aircraft can perform. YUFOS has been documenting these phenomena for years, classifying them as 'strange experiences'. Since 1950, reports have detailed these lights, with many executing 'crazy maneuvers'.

Case Study: Carleton Moore, March 15, 1983

A specific case is presented involving two off-duty police officers in Carleton Moore, North Yorkshire. They observed two bright lights approaching, which they initially mistook for aircraft. However, the lights made no sound and moved closer. One officer took two photographs, with one being reproduced in the magazine. The lights moved slowly, approximately 30-40 mph, to the west before disappearing behind a hill. The sighting lasted about three minutes. The witnesses estimated the lights were about 750 feet away and at an altitude of 200-300 feet. No unusual movements were noted, and the lights maintained a steady course. Investigations at local civilian and military airfields yielded no confirmation. The event occurred at 15:30 hours. The camera used was a Canon AEI with a 50mm lens, shot on Kodacolour Printfilm 400 ASA. Weather conditions were cloudy and breezy.

#### Photographic Analysis

The 'UFO photograph' was analyzed by Kodak at their UK headquarters. The analysis confirmed two bright spots with a reddish shimmer, possibly illuminated by atmospheric haze. The original negative showed little more detail. YUFOS commented that the area has a history of such 'strange balls of light' and suggested a solid structure might be behind them, estimating their diameter at around 30 feet. This is believed to be the only photograph of its kind from England.

YUFOS Research Study: Nocturnal Lights

Philip Mantle and Mark Birdsall of YUFOS prepared a study on 'Nocturnal Lights' for CENAP. The study categorizes NL as a significant portion of UFO sightings, often mistaken for aircraft landing lights or natural phenomena. However, the North Yorkshire area shows a disproportionately high number of NL reports.

#### Section One: Introduction

This section posits that many reported UFOs are actually NL, which witnesses often perceive as genuine UFOs. It notes the high concentration of NL in North Yorkshire and that trained observers like police officers and pilots have witnessed them without logical explanation.

#### Section Two: Nocturnal Lights (NL)

NL are described as glowing balls of yellow, orange, or white light, often exhibiting unusual characteristics that differentiate them from typical aircraft lights or natural phenomena like 'earth lights'.

1. Earth Lights: A newer hypothesis suggests NL originate from geological fissures. While North Yorkshire has such geological features, YUFOS believes this phenomenon is rare and insufficient to explain all NL reports.
2. Probability of Unknown Lights: In 1983, YUFOS received 32 such reports, representing 20% of their total UFO reports, a figure comparable to the national average in England.

##### Characteristics of NL:

• Speed: Generally reported at 40-50 mph, though some accounts mention hovering or rapid movement. The speed allowed observers to study the lights.
• Duration: Typically seen for 2-3 minutes, but some sightings lasted up to an hour. This provided ample study time for witnesses.
• Sound: No sound was reported, even when lights were estimated to be within 500 feet. The remote, sparsely populated nature of the Yorkshire moors contributes to the quietness, making aircraft sounds more noticeable.
• Size: Difficult to determine due to varying positions, but estimated at around 30 feet in diameter when witnesses were 500 feet away. This size is not typical for known aircraft, though helicopters can be similar in size, their lights differ.
• Color: Primarily reported as yellow (often pale yellow), white, or orange. The lights are described as 'glowing' and do not blind the observer. Yellow lights may have an orange glow. While atmospheric conditions can alter perceived color, YUFOS believes these reported colors are not due to natural or artificial phenomena.
• Structure: Most observers feel NL hide a possible structure. The possibility of misidentification of natural or artificial phenomena is acknowledged. YUFOS believes a small percentage of NL remain unidentified.

YUFOS Commentary on NL

While acknowledging the presence of military airfields (RAF and USAF) in the area, which could involve testing pilotless vehicles, YUFOS suggests the possibility of unknown structures behind the lights. They note that 'high strangeness' cases (CE I) and NL might be the same phenomenon. CE III cases (sightings of figures in or near UFOs) have also occurred in the area, suggesting intelligent control.

CENAP's Counterpoint: Hot Air Balloons

CENAP offers a different explanation: 'Party-Gag-Hot Air Balloons'. They note that over 50% of reports in 1983 were attributed to these balloons, yet they were not mentioned in the YUFOS study. CENAP argues that in countries like Denmark and Germany, such balloons are either unknown or strictly regulated, unlike in England where they are more common. They suggest that the regularity of sightings in the Yorkshire area might be explained by the presence of military forces using them for recreation, and that these balloons are often mistaken for UFOs. CENAP identifies these as hot air balloons, not aircraft, stars, meteors, or skyhook balloons.

Hessdalen and Yorkshire Parallels

The YUFOS and NIVFO studies on Hessdalen revealed parallel findings: 'earth lights' were dismissed despite apparent similarities, and massive NL sightings occurred in isolated areas like North Yorkshire. NIVFO notes that people in Hessdalen are less inclined to seek logical explanations, provoking new phenomena. CENAP observes that many witnesses in North Yorkshire are retired police officers, similar to 'UFO promoters' in Hessdalen.

Ministry of Defence (M.O.D.) and UFOs

This section presents correspondence and documents from the UK's Ministry of Defence regarding UFO reports. YUFOS obtained initial documents from the M.O.D. concerning their UFO policy.

M.O.D. Stance on UFO Reports

The M.O.D. stated that UFO reports are only classified if they contain sensitive information, such as informant names. They confirmed that reports are subject to the 'Public Records Acts' and are retained for up to 30 years. The M.O.D.'s sole interest in UFO reports is to identify anything of defense interest, such as intruding aircraft. Reports are passed to operations staff for examination as part of their normal duties.

Explanations for Sightings

The M.O.D. does not deny strange aerial phenomena but believes there are adequate material explanations, including satellite debris, ball lightning, unusual cloud formations, meteorological balloons, and aircraft lights. They have no evidence of alien spacecraft landings. The M.O.D. is aware of independent scientific studies, such as the 1969 University of Colorado report, which concluded that 90% of UFO reports could be plausibly explained by ordinary phenomena.

Report Retention Policy

The earliest UFO reports retained by the M.O.D. date back to 1962. Before 1967, these reports, like other routine papers, were destroyed after five years. The decision to retain them was made due to increasing public interest.

Correspondence Examples

• Several letters are included:
• A letter from A. Mathewson (M.O.D.) to YUFOS regarding their request for information.
• A letter from Wing Commander T. E. L. Jarron (RAF) to YUFOS.
• A letter from Major Andrew Wigram to Philip Mantle.
• A letter from the House of Commons to Mr. Mantle, enclosing a reply from John Stanley denying a cover-up.
• A letter from the Department of the Air Force (USAFE) to Mr. Mantle, confirming RAF training activity but stating it's unlikely their aircraft were involved in sightings over Ossett and Morley due to low-level flying restrictions.

M.O.D. Document Summary

A document from the M.O.D. reiterates that their interest is limited to defense matters. They do not deny strange aerial phenomena but believe in mundane explanations and lack evidence of alien landings. They are aware of independent studies. The M.O.D. began retaining reports in 1962, with a policy change in 1967 to keep them due to public interest.

Crashed Saucers and the Syndrome of Gullibility

Werner Walter of CENAP-MA critically examines the phenomenon of crashed saucers, a popular theme in UFO literature. He discusses Frank Scully's 1950 book 'Behind the Flying Saucers,' which claimed the US government recovered three crashed saucers in New Mexico in 1948, along with 34 small alien bodies. This book became a bestseller.

Debunking the 'Crashed Saucer' Myth

J.P. Cahn, an investigative journalist, later exposed Scully's story as a hoax. 'Dr. Gee' was identified as Leo GeBauer, a shop owner, and Silas Newton lacked credibility. GeBauer and Newton were arrested for selling a fraudulent oil-detection device. Ironically, Cahn's exposé was published in TRUE magazine, which also published Donald Keyhoe's article in January 1950, asserting UFOs were extraterrestrial and the US government was covering it up. TRUE magazine admitted in 1950 that while they believed UFOs were extraterrestrial, proof was still lacking but they were working to convince the public.

Modern Rehashes

Three decades later, similar stories about crashed saucers were revived in books like 'The Roswell Incident'. Walter suggests that many such claims are fabrications or misinterpretations, including the misidentification of hot air balloons.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue strongly emphasizes critical analysis and debunking of UFO phenomena, particularly 'Nocturnal Lights' and crashed saucer stories. CENAP's perspective, highlighted in the latter part of the magazine, leans towards mundane explanations, such as hot air balloons, for many sightings that YUFOS initially classifies as unexplained. The magazine also explores the role of government agencies like the M.O.D. in UFO investigations, revealing a cautious approach focused on national security rather than extraterrestrial research. The editorial stance appears to be one of skepticism towards sensational claims, advocating for rational explanations and thorough investigation.

This issue of PROJECT UFO III, titled "The 'Crashed Saucer Syndrome' - A Myth?" and dated July 1947, is a German-language publication from CENAP. It critically examines the widely discussed 'Crashed Saucer Syndrome' (CSS), with a particular focus on the Roswell incident, and questions the narrative of government cover-ups and extraterrestrial craft recovery.

The Roswell Incident and the 'Crashed Saucer Syndrome'

The article begins by referencing the enduring question of crashed UFOs, noting that authors like Charles Berlitz and William L. Moore have popularized the idea. It highlights the 1947 Roswell incident, where debris was found on the Brazel Ranch ten days before Kenneth Arnold's sighting of nine disc-shaped objects. Initially identified as parts of a radar calibration balloon, the incident quickly escalated into a UFO frenzy. Berlitz and Moore's account places the crash on July 2, 1947, suggesting the UFO was struck by lightning and later crashed near Socorro, New Mexico. They claim military personnel and scientists investigated, and that despite alleged secrecy, information about the debris leaked.

The authors of the article express skepticism about the ease with which such stories are accepted today, contrasting it with the original events. They note that despite claims of a cover-up, no witnesses from the time later came forward to corroborate Scully's book when it became a sensation.

Government Investigations and Secrecy

The issue delves into official documents and investigations. A declassified CIA memorandum from August 1952 suggests that even high-level intelligence agencies were not always informed about UFO matters. Another memo from December 1952 reveals a meeting of top officials from various government branches to discuss UFO reports and determine the 'evidence.' The article questions why such a meeting would be necessary if a flying saucer had indeed been recovered years earlier.

It is noted that the US government has gone to court to prevent the publication of books containing sensitive information. The article mentions 'The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence' by Victor Marchetti and John D. Marks, and 'The Pentagon Papers,' suggesting that government efforts to suppress information are significant.

Regarding the Roswell incident, the article states that unlike other cases, the government did not make a similar effort to cover it up, implying it was not as significant as claimed. The 'Freedom of Information Act' releases in late 1978 fueled speculation about the 'Crashed Saucer Syndrome,' with ufologists seeing them as support for their claims. Dr. Bruce Maccabee, in 'Frontiers of Science,' supported Berlitz and Moore's book, suggesting that FOIA releases would increasingly support the CSS.

UFO Symposium and Expert Opinions

A 1980 'UFO Symposium' in Washington D.C. featured proponents and opponents of the extraterrestrial hypothesis. Proponents included Maccabee, Hynek, and Hendry, while opponents included Oberg, Sheaffer, and Klass. When asked if the US government possessed alien spacecraft, only Maccabee suggested it was not surprising if they did, though he admitted having no direct proof. He speculated that the government might be withholding information, even from its own employees.

FBI and Air Force Involvement

The article details the roles of different agencies in UFO investigations. The FBI was responsible for witness backgrounds and recovered objects, while the USAF investigated reports, and the CIA observed. The article highlights the overwhelming number of hoaxes and misidentifications that had to be sifted through to find genuine reports. Examples are given of alleged 'flying discs' that turned out to be mundane objects like cardboard discs, aluminum-painted garbage cans, or even wooden plates decorated with scrap parts.

The 'Weather Balloon' Explanation

A teletype from the FBI Field-Office in Dallas dated July 8, 1947, is presented. It states that an object purporting to be a flying disc was recovered near Roswell, New Mexico. The disc was hexagonal and suspended from a balloon approximately twenty feet in diameter. It was further advised that the object resembled a high altitude weather balloon with a radar reflector. However, a telephonic conversation with Wright Field did not support this belief. The disc and balloon were transported to Wright Field for examination. The article suggests that the press, including national broadcasting companies, were attempting to break the story, leading to the 'national interest' in the case.

The FBI teletype clearly indicates the Roswell object was attached to a balloon, and while its purpose was unclear, it resembled a radar reflector. The article concludes that this explanation makes 'ETH-speculation' (Extraterrestrial Hypothesis) groundless, suggesting the 'national interest' was driven by the press wanting to sensationalize the case.

Further Incidents and Analysis

Several other alleged 'flying disc' incidents are mentioned: a report from Estill, South Carolina, of 'material from a flying disc' identified as powdered steatite; a 'flying disc' found in Saybrook, Illinois, deemed a teenage prank; and a recovered 'flying disc' in North Hollywood, California, described as two convex steel discs. The article also mentions a report from the Washington Post about a priest finding a 'wimmernden' disc in his garden, which turned out to be an 18-inch saw blade.

The article criticizes the tendency to interpret fragmented, second-hand information as proof of UFOs, particularly regarding claims of UFOs stored in 'Hangar 18' at Wright-Patterson AFB. It suggests that many such items were likely models or misidentified objects collected for research.

Conclusion and Editorial Stance

The issue concludes by questioning whether there are any genuine UFO crashes at all. The CENAP's note reveals that the article was rejected by the editor of '2000 Magazin' due to its perceived 'alienating perspectives' and because it contradicted two longer articles on the CSS already published. The editor of '2000 Magazin' stated a preference for objective reporting and less focus on demystifying older cases, suggesting a shift towards 'spiritual occultism' and 'New Age' trends. The CENAP, however, believes this article offers a more grounded perspective on UFOs and the press, recommending 'PROJECT UFO III' for further information.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are skepticism towards sensational UFO claims, particularly the 'Crashed Saucer Syndrome,' and an emphasis on official documentation and rational explanations. The editorial stance is critical of ufological narratives that rely on speculation and unverified accounts, advocating for a more evidence-based approach. The article highlights the role of the media in sensationalizing events and questions the extent of government secrecy versus the deliberate creation of a UFO myth.

This issue of CENAP's publication focuses on their updated identification statistics for UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) reports, presenting data as of May 1984. The cover headline, "WHERE IS THE BEEF?", suggests a critical examination of the UFO phenomenon and the research surrounding it.

CENAP's Identification Statistics (May 1984)

The article "CENAP's neue Identifikations-Statistik" by Hansjürgen Köhler provides an overview of the organization's findings. Following a previous statistic published in May 1983, the new data from May 1984 reveals that CENAP has investigated a total of 296 cases with a national character within the German-speaking region. However, a significant adjustment has been made to the classification system. Cases previously categorized as "Insufficient Data" (Fälle aus früheren Jahren, die nicht mehr nachuntersucht werden konnten) have been removed. This decision was made following objections that these cases should be classified as UAPs (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) rather than being set aside. These 39 removed cases were not evidence of flying saucers but rather incidents with short, vague descriptions or sightings from long ago, making identification impossible.

After this revision, the new total number of identified cases stands at 257. The article emphasizes that over the past few years, CENAP has successfully identified all reported incidents, and has not classified any as UAP or 'Unknown' for five years. This leads to the provocative question: "IS GERMANY A ZONE WITH A FLIGHT BAN FOR TRULY UNEXPLAINED CELESTIAL PHENOMENA FOR FIVE YEARS?" or, as the Americans say, "Where is the Beef?"

The statistics highlight that the UFOlogy landscape has become "UFO-less," with a continuous stream of identifications for initially reported UFOs. The author questions whether this is genuine UFO investigation or a separate field of "UFOLOGY" based on unsubstantiated knowledge about alien spacecraft.

Classification Breakdown

The classification system details the identified phenomena:

1. Balloons (all types): 72 cases
2. Aircraft, Helicopters, Airships: 36 cases
3. Meteors: 34 cases
4. Hoaxes (without photo material): 23 cases
5. Photo + Film Falsification (Fraud): 20 cases
6. Stars and Planets, Moon: 11 cases
7. Photo Errors: 7 cases
8. Unknown phenomena moving in the atmosphere: 7 cases
9. Re-Entry (e.g., space debris): 8 cases
10. Satellite: 5 cases
11. Optical Illusion: 5 cases
12. Fireball, special meteor type: 4 cases
13. Reflection: 5 cases
14. Cloud: 4 cases
15. Headlights: 4 cases
16. Newspaper Hoax (Zeitungsente): 3 cases

Additionally, Sylvester rockets, laser beams, and light clouds are listed under category 16, with paper kites and hand lamps also falling into this category, totaling 2 cases and 1 case respectively, none considered UFOs.

The total for May 1984 is 257 cases. The pie chart (Segment-Aufteilung, Stand Mai 1984) visually represents these categories, with segment 8 ('true' phenomena) being the smallest. The statistics show 97.4% identified/explained reports and 2.6% unresolved cases (UAP).

Discussion on Misidentifications and the UFO Industry

The article discusses the high proportion of identified phenomena, attributing it to factors like the frequent occurrence of party balloons, increased air traffic leading to misidentification of aircraft, and natural astronomical events such as meteors and planets being mistaken for UFOs. The author laments the lack of basic astronomical knowledge among the public, which contributes to the ongoing fascination with celestial mysteries.

The author also touches upon the market-driven nature of UFO reporting, suggesting that publications cater to what the public wants to buy and read, rather than focusing on objective truth. This leads to a socio-psychological problem surrounding the UFO question. The comparison between 1983 and 1984 statistics shows growth in most categories, with category 8 (UAP) remaining consistently low.

CENAP Activities and Events

CENAP announces its 5th UFO-Treff event in Heilbronn on September 29-30, 1984, open to all interested individuals. Information can be obtained from Roland Gehardt.

False UFO Alarms

Two specific incidents are highlighted as false alarms:

• Höxter: A prankster released a large balloon with a burning aluminum shell, causing four citizens to report a UFO. The police were alerted.
• Bad Homburg: Numerous calls reported an exploding aircraft, which turned out to be a hot air balloon launched during a street festival.

Correspondence and Critiques

The issue includes several letters and responses:

• Werner Walter (CENAP-Mannheim) writes a letter from Holland, criticizing the "UFO-Mafia" and sensationalist UFOlogists who, in his view, create and perpetuate the phenomenon rather than investigating it truthfully. He argues that the real problem lies with the UFOlogists themselves, not the phenomena.
• Roland Gehardt responds to a critique from "Das Neue Zeitalter" (DNZ) regarding an article about a UFO incident in Suffolk, England. Gehardt defends his journalistic integrity, stating he relied on the reputable "NEWS OF THE WORLD" and conducted his own research, finding the reports to be factual.
• Hellmuth Hoffmann, a publicist, writes a detailed response to CENAP's complaint to the German Press Council regarding an article in DNZ. Hoffmann defends his journalistic approach, emphasizing his reliance on credible sources and his commitment to factual reporting. He also addresses CENAP's aggressive use of letters to the editor and their critique of his work, suggesting it might border on libel.
• Letters to the Editor (Leserstimmen zum CR) include positive feedback on the CENAP Report, but also criticism regarding perceived arrogance and aggression from CENAP. One reader expresses skepticism about CENAP's reliance on official statements, believing in extraterrestrial surveillance.
• A brief note clarifies that the French "UFO-Telefon" mentioned in CR 99 was created by AESV and is not related to FFU.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the rigorous statistical analysis of UFO sightings, the critical distinction between genuine research and sensationalist "UFOLOGY," and the ethical responsibilities of journalists reporting on such topics. CENAP's stance is clearly one of debunking and identifying conventional explanations for reported phenomena, aiming to demystify the subject and counter what they perceive as an "industry" built on speculation and misinformation. They advocate for a scientific approach, emphasizing the importance of accurate documentation and critical evaluation of evidence, while also highlighting the public's lack of basic scientific knowledge as a contributing factor to the enduring mystery of UFOs.