CENAP Report - No 135

Magazine Overview

Title: NIGHT LIGHTS
Issue: 5/1987, Nr.135
Publisher: CENAP (Central Research Network for Extraordinary Sky Phenomena)
Date: May 1987
Price: DM 3,90

Content Summary

This issue of 'NIGHT LIGHTS', the new CENAP report, documents, analyzes, and critically comments on current and historical sighting reports, with particular attention to media coverage. It also aims to provide psychological hygiene by informing about dubious reporting and the content, goals, and causes of various pseudoreligious and occult-criminal groups.

Cover Story and Key Articles:

• Cover Headline: "Außerirdischer auf US-Militarbase getötet ?" (Extraterrestrial killed on US military base?)
• Article 1: "Außerirdischer auf US-Militarbase getötet ?" by L. Stringfield and W. Walter. This article delves into the alleged killing of an extraterrestrial on a US military base.
• Article 2: "Tageslichtobjekt über Osnabrück fotografiert: Über 30 Zeugen" (Daylight object photographed over Osnabrück: Over 30 witnesses). This report details a daylight sighting near Osnabrück, supported by over 30 witnesses and photographic evidence.
• Article 3: "5 orangene Scheiben in der Sylvesternacht über Stuttgart" (5 orange discs on New Year's Eve over Stuttgart). This article describes a New Year's Eve sighting of five orange discs over Stuttgart, reported to CENAP Mannheim.
• Article 4: "Landsspurklassiker: Der Fall Delphos (II.Teil)" (Ground Trace Classic: The Delphos Case (Part II)) by P. Klass, W. Walter, and R. Henke. This is the second part of a discussion on the classic Delphos case, with the authors arriving at surprising conclusions.
• Internal Affairs: "Eindrücke der Apriltagung zwischen GEP und CENAP" (Impressions of the April meeting between GEP and CENAP) by R. Henke. This section provides insights into a meeting between the two organizations.

Editorial and Letters to the Editor:

The editorial reflects on a recent daylight sighting in Germany and a New Year's Eve case, noting the recurring UFO stimulus. It also mentions the Delphos case and the article about an extraterrestrial allegedly killed on a US military base. The editorial also touches upon media reactions to a previous report on the 'Mars face' and promises further discussion on 'Mars fairy tales' and the Hessdalen phenomenon.

Several letters to the editor are included:

• R. Pokorny (Mainz) criticizes CENAP's stance on UFO interpretations, particularly regarding a fireball event, and accuses CENAP of defamation against the president of DUIST. Pokorny argues for the possibility of extraterrestrial intervention to solve Earth's problems.
• The NL Editorial Team responds to Pokorny, clarifying CENAP's methodology, emphasizing verifiable facts over opinions, and challenging Pokorny to provide evidence for 'kilometer-long' spacecraft sightings. They also address the accusation of defamation, stating their research is critical but not prejudiced.
• I. Brand (Dipl.-Phys., Feldkirchen-Westerham), writing from MUFON-ces, expresses surprise at CENAP's criticism of Walter's work and hopes for a positive change in CENAP's working style. Brand suggests Walter's training might limit his ability to formulate hypotheses and that MUFON-ces focuses on UFOs that CENAP cannot explain.
• The NL Editorial Team notes that only a few cases remain unexplained after the GEP and CENAP meeting.
• G. Mosbleck (Lüdenscheid), writing from GEP, praises the new layout and design of 'Night Lights' but criticizes the content, particularly Rudolf's commentary and Köhler's article. Mosbleck questions CENAP's claims about its research, noting a lack of information in publications like DER SPIEGEL.
• The NL Editorial Team responds to Mosbleck, questioning if a new printer alone can improve the content.
• K. Webner (Wiesbaden), a filmmaker, compliments the design but dislikes the title 'Night Lights', preferring 'CENAP-REPORT'. Webner expresses disappointment that CENAP now focuses solely on 'extraordinary sky phenomena' and not broader superstition. Webner strongly objects to a disclaimer stating that article content does not necessarily align with the editorial board's views, comparing it to a similar statement previously criticized by Walter.
• The NL Editorial Team clarifies that they are focusing on 'Night Lights' as their main theme due to the vast amount of material, and that while they aim to address broader superstition, it requires extensive knowledge in various fields.
• E. Strand (Eidsvoll, Norway), from UFO-NOROE, praises the professional appearance of 'Night Lights' but agrees with Rudolf Henke's assessment that CENAP is 'overly critical'. Strand suggests CENAP's organization should be viewed as being at the other end of the spectrum.
• The NL Editorial Team responds to Strand, noting that the 'absolute hammer' disclaimer has been removed and explaining that differing opinions within CENAP are acceptable, emphasizing that decisions are made collectively.
• E. Reuter (Solingen-Wald) criticizes a previous report about a woman mistaking Venus for a UFO, questioning CENAP's handling of evidence and the destruction of Greek documents. Reuter expresses disappointment with the contact.
• The CR Editorial Team apologizes for the destruction of documents, explaining it was due to a lack of important information and assuming they could retain them. They clarify that the photo did not resemble Venus and that the full Greek newspaper reports were not published due to lack of interest and language barriers.

Special Features:

• "Offener Brief" (Open Letter) by Walter Hain: Walter Hain addresses Johannes von Buttlar regarding a 'Mars face' image presented on television. Hain claims the image was a reconstruction from his 1979 book 'Wir vom Mars' and was used without his knowledge, calling Buttlar's presentation a falsification and threatening legal action.

International Reports:

• "Ausland: Norwegen" (Abroad: Norway) - "Überkritisch kontra Unkritisch" (Overly Critical vs. Uncritical): A letter from UFO-NOROE (E. Strand) praises the new look of 'Night Lights' but criticizes CENAP's overly critical approach, suggesting they are at the opposite end of the spectrum from uncritical.
• "Reaktionen auf unseren kritischen Bericht zum sog. HESSDALEN-Phänomen (NL 133)" (Reactions to our critical report on the so-called HESSDALEN phenomenon): This section includes a statement from the Hessdalen Project (E. Strand) and a response from the author of the article (Rudolf Henke). The Hessdalen Project statement details their investigation of lights in Hessdalen during 1982, noting that only reports with high degrees of peculiarity were documented. The author's note questions the selectivity of the reports and the lack of consideration for planetary positions, especially given 1982 was a notable planetary year.

Domestic Reports:

• "INLAND - Keine Ähnlichkeit mit Venus ?" (Domestic - No Similarity to Venus?): A letter from E. Reuter criticizes a previous report in NL Nr. 132 about a woman mistaking Venus for a UFO. Reuter expresses strong dissatisfaction with CENAP's handling of the case, including the alleged destruction of Greek documents and the publication of fragmented text.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue of 'Night Lights' demonstrates CENAP's commitment to critically investigating UFO phenomena, emphasizing verifiable evidence and scientific rigor. The magazine engages in debates with other UFO research organizations, such as DUIST and MUFON-ces, and critically examines media reporting. The editorial stance leans towards skepticism regarding unsubstantiated claims, while remaining open to genuine unexplained phenomena. There is a clear emphasis on distinguishing between critical research and pseudoscientific or pseudoreligious beliefs. The magazine also highlights the challenges of comprehensive UFO research, requiring expertise across multiple disciplines.

Title: Night Lights
Issue: 5.87 (Nr. 135)
Date: May 1987
Publisher: Night Lights
Country: Germany
Language: German
Document Type: Magazine Issue

This issue of "Night Lights" delves into the world of UFO sightings, with a strong emphasis on scientific investigation and debunking common misconceptions. The magazine features articles that analyze specific cases, discuss the methods of UFO research organizations, and explore the psychological and societal factors that contribute to UFO beliefs.

The Sighting (Die Sichtung)

The issue opens with a detailed account of a New Year's Eve sighting by a woman and her husband. The witness provided exceptionally precise details, including geographical coordinates and timings, which the article highlights as a counterpoint to the stereotype of less observant older individuals. The sighting occurred between 0:20 and 0:28 AM. After watching fireworks, the woman observed a bright orange light in the WNW, initially mistaking it for Venus. She then noticed a second, similar light moving parallel to the first. Using binoculars, she described the object as "disk-shaped" with a "slightly raised rim," intensely orange and glowing, with indistinct contours. Her husband joined her, and they observed the objects ascend eastward until they disappeared into a cloud. The phenomenon repeated, with a total of five orange, glowing objects observed. The witness took two photos, but they revealed nothing identifiable. She emphasized having never seen anything like it, despite living near an airport.

The article then poses the question: "UFOs or Party Balloons?" It acknowledges that while a definitive identification is not always possible, most sightings can be explained by known objects, with party balloons being a likely candidate in many cases. The probability of known objects is prioritized over assuming the existence of unidentified ones.

Caution: Binocular Observation! (Vorsicht, Fernglasbeobachtung!)

This section addresses the "half exception" in the previous sighting: the described shape as observed through binoculars. The witness initially saw a circular object with the naked eye, but an elliptical shape with a "raised rim" through binoculars. The article explains that while binoculars can offer magnification, they can also distort images, especially at the edges of the field of vision. Factors like astigmatism can also contribute to perceived distortions. The "raised rim" could be attributed to the object's coating.

The article then summarizes the key sighting characteristics:
1. Shape: Circular (naked eye) to elliptical (binoculars).
2. Structures: Raised rim (binoculars).
3. Contours: Unsharp.
4. Color: Orange.
5. Flight behavior: Silent, hovering, ascending.
6. Duration: Approx. 10 minutes.
7. Sighting day: New Year's Eve.
8. Flight direction: WNW to ONO, with wind from SW at 3 km/h.

The authors argue that points 3-8 strongly support the party balloon hypothesis, noting the alignment of wind direction with flight direction. They then discuss estimations of distance and speed, comparing witness estimates with calculated values based on known party balloon capabilities and wind conditions.

Witness Estimates (Zeugenschätzungen)

The witness provided two apparent size estimates: "larger than Venus" and "2-3 mm at arm's length." The article calculates that these estimates, if interpreted as double Venus size, lead to distances between 300 meters and 3 kilometers, with the latter being unrealistic. The estimated speed of the balloons, moving for several minutes at perhaps 1000 meters distance, was "700 to 900 km/h," which is considered a significant overestimation, differing by a factor of over 10. The estimated height of 700 to 1200 meters is considered more realistic.

Aftermath (Nachspiel)

To address lingering doubts about the binocular observation, the witness was sent a photo of a party balloon. She was impressed, noting how such a balloon could appear intensely luminous and create a "UFO effect" that could impress an unsuspecting observer. The article concludes that this case is considered resolved.

A photo caption indicates that the five orange glowing objects were observed from the 19th floor of a 23-story residential building in Asemwald. The report is attributed to HJ. Köhler and R. Henke.

Daylight Object Photographed Over Osnabrück: More Than 30 Witnesses (Tageslicht-Objekt über Osnabrück fotografiert: Mehr als 30 Zeugen)

This article reports on a rare daylight sighting and photographic evidence of an unidentified object. The phenomenon was witnessed by over 30 people and photographed. CENAP, after examining the photos, concluded with high probability that they are authentic and depict a real physical phenomenon, calling it a "rare confluence of favorable circumstances" and a potential "credible indication of an Unknown Atmospheric Phenomenon (UAP)."

The report originated in mid-March and concerns an object seen seven years prior by over 30 English soldiers at the Belfast Barracks near Osnabrück. The witness, Antony Chomley, a British citizen living in Germany, learned of CENAP's work through a UFO-interested colleague.

The Sighting Story (Sichtungsgeschichte)

Around April or May 1980, during a warm day, several off-duty soldiers from the 1st British Kings Regiment were in the barracks when one excitedly reported seeing a UFO. Chomley and about 30 other soldiers went outside and observed a hovering object in the lightly clouded sky. They described it as a "dark grey, cylindrical thing" that seemed to be hundreds of meters high, silently floating over the barracks. It was ruled out as an airplane, Zeppelin, or balloon due to its unusual movements. Lively discussions ensued about its nature and origin.

Chomley described the object to CENAP as "cylindrical with rounded ends," approximately 50-70 meters long and 10-20 meters wide. There were no visible markings, windows, or a basket. He could not see any propulsion system. The object appeared to hang motionless in the air, then moved up and down, rotated on its axis, and moved back and forth before disappearing towards Osnabrück at an estimated speed of 10-20 km/h. Chomley managed to retrieve his camera (Pentax Automatic 110) and took six photos, one of which is reproduced.

He also noted that the phenomenon seemed to be high in the sky, below the clouds, and reflected sunlight dully. He speculated about "extraterrestrial espionage," given that Osnabrück was a major garrison town with eight barracks.

Solution to the Riddle (Des Rätsels Lösung)

Based on the collective witness accounts, the article proposes the "Solar Zeppelin" as the solution. The length-to-width ratio measured from the photo (6:1) matched that of commercially available solar zeppelins. The article lists the sighting characteristics and how they align with a solar zeppelin:
1. Form: "Cylinder with rounded ends."
2. Aspect Ratio: 6:1.
3. Color: "Grey," true color anthracite to black.
4. Flight behavior: "Back and forth, up and down movement, rotation on own axis."
5. Calculated height: Approx. 160 meters.
6. Reflection: "Dull reflection of sunlight."
7. Observation duration: Approx. 10 minutes.
8. Season, Temperature, Weather: April-May, warm, lightly clouded.
9. Soundlessness: (Noted as a less reliable point).

The article states that these observations strongly support the solar zeppelin hypothesis. The measured ratio of the photographed object's length and thickness (2.8:0.5) is considered practically consistent with a real solar zeppelin's dimensions (3 meters: 0.5 meters), accounting for measurement errors and the expansion of the zeppelin as internal air warms.

The estimated height of 160 meters is considered realistic, especially when considering the witness's apparent size estimation. The observation duration and speed estimation are also deemed realistic. The flight behavior is described as characteristic of a solar zeppelin, which someone who has flown one would confirm.

How Reliable are the Witness Estimates? (Wie sicher sind die Schätzwerte des Zeugen ?)

A table compares witness estimates with actual values for apparent size, real size, and distance:

• Apparent Size: Witness: 50-10 mm; Actual: ca. 10 mm; Overestimation: practically none.
• Real Size: Witness: 50-75 m; Actual: 3 m; Overestimation: ca. 20x.
• Distance: Witness: 1000-1500 m; Actual: ca. 160 m; Overestimation: ca. 8x.

The article emphasizes that these discrepancies highlight the extreme overestimations often made in sky observations, even by experienced investigators. It criticizes the tendency to take witness estimates as objective measurements.

Solar Zeppelins as UFO Stimuli (Solarzeppeline als UFO-Stimuli)

Despite a decrease in misidentified solar zeppelin sightings in recent years, CENAP recognizes their significance as "UFO stimuli." The article notes that a youth comic in 1980 included a "UFO-Solar" as a gimmick, coinciding with an increase in such incidents in Germany. The same magazine later re-released this toy. CENAP reported cases where "UFO alarms" turned out to be false, with the "secret of the black UFO" being nothing more than a balloon with a very thin envelope.

The report is attributed to W. Walter and R. Henke.

When a UFO Loses Moon Crescents (Wenn ein UFO Mondsicheln verliert)

This section, written by Ursula Kiausch, focuses on the work of CENAP, a Mannheim-based organization dedicated to scientifically investigating UFO phenomena. The article begins with a sighting by a woman in Mannheim who observed a brightly glowing object in the eastern sky on a Sunday morning. The object had a "honeycomb-like pattern." The local planetarium found no unusual celestial bodies, but suggested contacting CENAP.

CENAP, an acronym for "Central Research Network for Extraordinary Celestial Phenomena," is described as a private society aiming to demystify UFO reports. Werner Walter, a co-founder of CENAP in 1976, explains that the name was chosen to differentiate them from groups that treat UFOs as a religion. CENAP has investigated over 350 UFO sightings, with a 98% success rate in finding natural explanations. Common explanations include comets, aircraft, and helicopters, but sometimes more unusual ones, like the "Roswell Incident."

Walter recounts the "Roswell Incident" as a widely circulated rumor about captured extraterrestrials. He explains that a photograph associated with it, showing two military policemen and a small being, first appeared on April 1, 1950, as part of an April Fool's joke. The article notes that the sensationalism surrounding the incident led to books like Charles Berlitz's.

CENAP's approach involves scientific scrutiny. Walter shares his own UFO experience from 1973: seeing a glowing, trapezoidal object while playing table tennis, which remains unexplained. His interest in astronomy led him to join a UFO group in Wiesbaden, but he became disillusioned by what he perceived as blind faith. He and his colleagues then focused on empirical investigation, acquiring knowledge in astronomy, meteorology, geology, and aerospace. Their work has gained recognition, with authorities sometimes consulting them.

The article highlights CENAP's role in debunking myths, citing the case of a farmer who claimed extraterrestrials left moon-crescent-shaped tracks on his farm. CENAP discovered that the concrete slabs had been treated with varnish, causing them to form crescent shapes when wet. The article also mentions that CENAP publishes a monthly magazine called "Night Lights" with a small circulation. Werner Walter has written a 300-page book, "Das Ufo-Phänomen über Deutschland," but has struggled to find a publisher.

CENAP Solves the Riddle of the Spaceship Scars (CENAP löste das Rätsel der Raumschiff-Sparen)

This section details the case of a farmer who believed he had evidence of alien visitation in the form of moon-crescent-shaped marks on his concrete floor. CENAP investigated and found that a production error had caused the concrete slabs to be treated with varnish. These varnished areas retained the shape of moon crescents, which became visible when wet. The article humorously notes that the presence of a power line across the farm would have had to be severed by a landing spaceship, a detail that even UFO enthusiasts found questionable.

In Mannheim, UFO Legends Burst (In Mannheim platzen die Ufo-Legenden)

This article, by Ingo Leipner, further elaborates on CENAP's work in debunking UFO legends in Mannheim. It recounts the January sighting of a "brightly glowing body" with a "honeycomb-like pattern" that was attributed to Venus. CENAP's investigation confirmed this explanation. The article also mentions the "Roswell Incident" again, detailing how a photograph was used in an April Fool's joke by a newspaper editor and later became associated with the UFO phenomenon.

Werner Walter explains that CENAP investigates UFO phenomena scientifically, aiming to provide rational explanations. He notes that their success rate is high, with most sightings being attributable to known objects. Walter also discusses his personal UFO experience from 1973, which remains unexplained. He describes his disillusionment with the uncritical belief systems found in some UFO circles and his subsequent dedication to scientific investigation. CENAP's work has led them to consult with government agencies. They publish "Night Lights" and Walter has authored a book on the UFO phenomenon in Germany.

CENAP Service: Astro Charts (CENAP-Service: Astrokarten)

This section offers a service to readers: the ability to order computer-generated star charts for any geographical point on Earth at a specific time. The price is DM 1.- per print (plus DM 0.80 postage). To order, readers need to provide the desired location (with at least 10,000 inhabitants), the year and time of the sighting, and optionally, the direction of the sky.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the scientific investigation of UFO sightings, the debunking of common UFO myths, and the identification of everyday objects (like party balloons and solar zeppelins) as the source of many reported phenomena. CENAP, the central organization featured, advocates for a rational, evidence-based approach to understanding these events. The editorial stance is clearly skeptical of sensationalist claims and promotes critical thinking and scientific methodology in the study of unexplained aerial phenomena. The magazine aims to educate its readers by providing plausible explanations for sightings that are often sensationalized by other media.

Title: Night Lights
Issue: Nr.135
Volume: 5.87
Issue Date: May 1987
Publisher: Night Lights
Country: Germany
Language: German

This issue of Night Lights delves into the controversial 1978 incident at McGuire Air Force Base and Fort Dix, New Jersey, focusing on the alleged shooting of an alien being and its subsequent recovery. The article is primarily based on the testimony of a security policeman, identified as "Jeffry Morse," and the investigative efforts of UFO researcher Leonard Stringfield.

The Fort Dix/McGuire AFB Incident: An Alien Shot?

The central narrative revolves around a report that on January 18, 1978, following a series of UFO sightings over McGuire AFB and Fort Dix, a military policeman (MP) from Fort Dix pursued a low-flying object. The object was described as oval and emitting a bluish-green light. The MP's radio transmission was cut off. Subsequently, a greyish-brown, non-human entity, approximately 1.20 meters tall with a large head and slender limbs, appeared. The MP, identified as Jeffry Morse, panicked and fired five shots from his .45 caliber Colt at the entity and one shot at the object above, which then fled upwards to join eleven other objects in the sky.

Morse found the entity near the runway, where it had apparently died after climbing a fence. The area was immediately cordoned off, and a specialized team from Wright-Patterson AFB arrived to handle the recovery. The body was crated, sprayed, placed in a metal container, and transported by a C-141 aircraft. Morse and other personnel involved were ordered to remain silent about the incident under threat of court-martial.

Leonard Stringfield's Investigation

Leonard Stringfield, a renowned UFO researcher specializing in Crashed Saucer Syndrome (CCS), was presented with this case. He received an official-looking document detailing the incident. Stringfield's investigation was complicated by the need to verify the information and the potential for hoaxes. He also received information about other alleged UFO recovery cases, including one from Texas in the late 1940s and a report of a truck driver transporting a flying saucer in Aztec, New Mexico, in 1947.

Stringfield's attempts to get more information from Morse were met with delays and apparent concerns about mail surveillance. Morse, who was leaving the Air Force, expressed a desire to continue pursuing the matter and requested that communications be routed through his parents. Stringfield, along with fellow researchers Dr. Peter Rank and Richard Hall, deemed the Fort Dix/McGuire case significant due to its timeliness and sensational content.

The "Jeffry Morse" Report

The core of the evidence presented is a report attributed to "Jeffry Morse," a security policeman at McGuire AFB. This report, dated January 18, 1979 (though the incident occurred in 1978), details the UFO sightings, the pursuit of the object, the shooting of the entity, and its subsequent recovery. The report notes that the body was of "unknown origin" and was handed over to the OSI District Commander and a Special Recovery Team from Wright-Patterson AFB. An official Incident/Complaint Report (No. 1/18-239-78) from the 4th SPS, MAFB, N.J., dated January 18, 1979, confirms that an unidentified being was shot and recovered, with the body released to the care of OSI and a recovery team from Wright-Patterson AFB.

Secrecy and Subsequent Events

Morse was later flown to Wright-Patterson AFB for debriefing along with other personnel involved. He described the interrogation as being conducted in a sterile environment by both military and civilian personnel, with an emphasis on maintaining silence. The unit involved was reportedly disbanded, and personnel were dispersed to various global locations to prevent further information leaks.

Morse's account, initially received by Stringfield via mail and phone, was further detailed in an "Incident/Complaint Report" (No. 239-78) dated January 18, 1978. This report corroborated the earlier details, including the shooting of an unidentified being and its recovery. The report also mentioned that the entity was approximately 1.20 meters long, with a large head, and had greyish-brown skin.

Analysis and Skepticism

The article raises questions about the authenticity of the event, particularly regarding the recovery process. The author contrasts the alleged recovery of the alien body with the quarantine procedures for the Apollo 11 astronauts, highlighting the lack of protective gear worn by the "Blue Hats" (special recovery team) during the alleged retrieval. This is presented as a point of potential incredulity, suggesting either extreme carelessness or a fabricated story.

Despite the sensational nature of the account, Stringfield concludes that the case possesses more substance than other UFO encounters or recoveries he has documented. He acknowledges the need for more information but relies on Morse's testimony as the sole witness account. Morse himself is described as a credible, intelligent, and alert individual who did not claim the being was extraterrestrial but rather "something non-human."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue highlights themes of government secrecy surrounding UFO phenomena, the challenges of investigating alleged crash retrievals, and the reliance on eyewitness testimony when official documentation is scarce or classified. The editorial stance appears to be one of cautious investigation, acknowledging the possibility of extraordinary events while maintaining a critical eye towards the evidence presented. The article implies that while the case is compelling, definitive proof remains elusive, leaving the reader to ponder whether the event was a genuine encounter or an elaborate hoax.

Title: Night Lights
Issue: Nr.135
Volume: 5.87
Date: May 1987
Publisher: Night Lights (Germany)
Language: German

Article 1: Discussion of Fakes and Hoaxes

The issue begins by discussing the ease with which collectors can obtain documents, potentially leading to the creation of hoaxes. It references the "Adamski" letter, which was known to be a prank. A report from Richard Ogden in Seattle details how James Maney of Oklahoma City posed as a collector to obtain blank letterheads from the US State Department in April 1957. The author suggests that similar tactics could have been used to create fake UFO-related documents.

Article 2: Blaubuch and Blaumützen (Blue Book and Blue Berets)

This section questions the coincidence of Project Blue Book being conducted at Wright-Patterson AFB and the sudden emergence of the term "Blaumützen" (Blue Berets). It speculates whether "Blue Berets" could be a "Blue Book" security force and notes that the description of a "}$verhör-spezialisten$" (interrogation specialist) coincidentally matches the appearance of prominent UFO researcher J.A. Hynek. The author suggests that these might be more than mere coincidences.

Article 3: Some Swindling Letters

In 1979, a wave of fraudulent letters circulated in the USA, using official-looking paper. Three such letters are detailed:

1. February 2, 1979: Addressed to "Mr. Zechel," this letter, purportedly from the Air Force Ministry's Rocket Propulsion Laboratory at Edwards AFB, California, and signed by Kenneth E. Sterling, states that crashed UFOs are not studied and that the "Blaumützen" are part of the "9741st Alien Aircraft Retrieval Squadron" operating from Wright-Patterson AFB.
2. May 4, 1979: Also addressed to Zechel, this letter, supposedly from the "Division for Extraterrestrial Technology" at Wright-Patterson AFB and signed by Col. Frank Jamieson, denies access to the "Department for Extraterrestrial Technology" due to security clearance.
3. June 5, 1979: This letter, signed by Major General John W. Carruthers, Chief of Staff of the USAF Information Service, attempts to discredit UFO debunker Klass.

The article notes that the term "Blaumützen" only appeared in these fraudulent letters and in the case studied by Stringfield concerning Fort Dix/McGuire. It suggests that these letters and the Fort Dix incident may have originated from the same source, implying ongoing fabrication of documents.

Article 4: The Delphos Landing Case (Part II): Public Deception

This article, co-authored by P. Klass, W. Walter, and R. Henke, critically examines the Delphos landing case. It begins by discussing the importance of landing traces as UFO evidence, noting that while Ted Phillips has documented many such cases, few originate from Germany. The article references Philip J. Klass's book "UFOs - The Public Deceived," which analyzes the Delphos case in Chapter 15.

Journalist Ronald Schiller, commissioned by Reader's Digest, interviewed various UFO proponents and skeptics, including Klass, Ted Phillips, James Lorenzen, Dr. James A. Harder, William Spaulding, J. Allen Hynek, and Stanton Friedman, to research an article on UFOs. Schiller's subsequent article was met with accusations of "brainwashing" by the UFO community.

Schiller asked UFOlogists to name the three best UFO cases that defied conventional explanation. The Delphos case was among those identified, along with two "close encounters" and a purported abduction case.

The Delphos Case Details:

• Date: November 2, 1971
• Location: Delphos, Kansas, USA
• Witness: A 16-year-old boy (and his dog; sheep in the area reacted with fear).
• Description: A bright, hovering object, approximately 3 x 2.7 meters, about 23 meters away, near ground level. It produced a rumbling sound, remained on the ground for about three minutes, and then ascended with a high-pitched tone. The parents reported seeing a bright light in the sky.

The article suggests that the object's behavior and sounds could be explained by a helicopter, citing the rumbling and the Doppler effect causing a frequency increase upon departure. The author questions why the case was so highly publicized, suggesting that without the mysterious traces, it might not have been taken seriously.

Analysis of the Delphos Case:

The article presents several points suggesting the Delphos case was a hoax:

1. The "UFO" Sighting: The description is consistent with a helicopter.
2. The Ring Trace: The ring, approximately 2.5 meters in diameter, was reportedly present before the UFO sighting. Its asymmetry and the precise match between the estimated UFO size and the ring diameter raise suspicion, suggesting the UFO size might have been adjusted to fit the ring after its discovery.
3. Financial Incentive: The Johnson family received $5000 from the "National Enquirer" for their story, which could have motivated exaggeration or fabrication.
4. Attention Seeking: The boy, Ronnie, became the center of attention, and the prize money might have encouraged further embellishment of the story, especially as the initial excitement waned.

Scientific Analysis of the Trace:

Ted Phillips investigated the trace and collected soil samples. Analysis revealed a high concentration of zinc (over 100 times the surrounding soil) and other elements like magnesium and manganese. Philip Klass proposed that the ring was caused by a galvanized iron animal feeding trough, which would explain the zinc and iron oxide content. The article notes that the trace's relative water permeability, possibly due to hydrocarbons, is not fully explained by the feeding trough hypothesis alone. However, it suggests that paint or fertilizer residues could also be responsible. The author concludes that it is difficult to accept that a non-terrestrial object would leave such an earthly mineral combination in a ring shape.

Subsequent Events and Claims:

• The "National Enquirer" announced in May 1973 that its "Blue Ribbon Panel" had selected the Delphos case as the winner of a $5000 prize, calling it a "great scientific mystery."
• In October 1973, the focus shifted to the Pascagoula abduction case, overshadowing the Johnson family.
• A military helicopter-UFO incident near Mansfield, Ohio, also gained headlines.

Ronnie's Continued Claims:

• In October 1974, the Johnsons reported that the UFO had returned. Ronnie claimed to have seen it again, hovering over the same spot.
• Ronnie reportedly developed "paranormal powers," including predicting his sister-in-law's accident.
• Mr. Johnson suggested that Ronnie might have been taken aboard the UFO, and that the initial sighting affected their livestock, with sows becoming infertile and lambs born prematurely and weak.
• One of Mr. Johnson's watches stopped for over two days after the incident.

Encounter with a "Wolf Girl":

Ronnie also reported an encounter with a "wolf girl," a creature described as over 90 cm long with wild blonde hair and a torn red coat, who moved on all fours faster than a human.

Skepticism and Conclusion:

Ralph Enlow, a former sheriff's deputy, advised using a lie detector for such reports. Since then, no further strange reports have emerged from Delphos. The article reiterates that the Delphos case is far from being one of the "three best UFO cases" and strongly suggests a hoax, possibly a combination of deception, hysteria, and exaggeration, fueled by the prize money and the desire for attention.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the prevalence of hoaxes and fraudulent documents within the UFO community, the potential for government secrecy or misinformation (as suggested by the "Blaumützen" letters), and a critical, skeptical examination of prominent UFO cases like Delphos. The editorial stance is clearly one of skepticism towards extraordinary claims, emphasizing the need for rigorous investigation and questioning the motives and evidence presented in such cases. The magazine aims to debunk sensationalized UFO accounts by presenting alternative, more mundane explanations and highlighting inconsistencies in witness testimony and evidence.

Title: Night Lights
Issue: 5.87 - Nr.135
Date: May 1987
Publisher: Night Lights
Country: Germany
Language: German

This issue of Night Lights delves into various aspects of UFO research, critically examining investigation methods, psychological influences, and the historical context of belief in unexplained phenomena. It features a detailed report on a working conference between the UFO investigation groups GEP and CENAP, a review of a book on UFOs, and astronomical observations for the period.

Article: Aberglauben - damals wie heute (Superstition - Then and Now)

This section explores the human tendency to seek causal explanations for phenomena that lack clear answers, a trait present in both so-called 'primitive' and modern societies. It argues that this 'superstitious' attitude leads to the fabrication of connections that do not exist, driven by a stronger need for causal explanation than practical logic. The article uses the Delphos case as an example, where animal fertility issues were attributed to a sky phenomenon, illustrating how one unknown is replaced by another. It contrasts this with scientific approaches, noting that while science seeks to trace phenomena to a single cause, superstition lacks statistically verifiable connections. The author suggests that the Delphos incident likely stemmed from a hysterical reaction to the initial sighting, drawing parallels to historical scapegoating, such as the persecution of witches in the Middle Ages and Jews during the 'Third Reich'.

Article: Eindrücke der Arbeitstagung zwischen GEP und CENAP vom 11./12.4. in Sandhausen (Impressions of the Working Conference between GEP and CENAP on April 11/12 in Sandhausen)

This report by Rudolf Henke details a working conference between the German UFO investigation groups GEP and CENAP. The initial hope for closer cooperation was largely unfulfilled. The conference focused on discussing UFO/UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) cases. CENAP's analysis, led by the author, concluded that most previously classified UAP cases could be explained by known psychological illusions or misidentifications, classifying 6 out of 10 CENAP cases as IFOs (Identified Flying Objects). Two were identified as astronomical objects (stars, planets), one as a meteoritic event, and three as meteorological phenomena, balloons, or cases with insufficient data.

The author, Rudolf Henke, classified the remaining four cases as aircraft or helicopters. This led to significant controversy, particularly with GEP representative 0.M. Henke criticizes GEP's analytical approach, deeming it unscientific and lacking in methodological rigor. He points out GEP's difficulty in defining basic terms, such as the distinction between witness perception (UFO i.w.S.) and investigator analysis (UFO i.e.S.).

A major point of contention was the credibility assessment of witnesses. Henke argues that GEP largely ignored the well-known psychological factors affecting perception, treating witness statements as infallible objective documentation. He criticizes the use of arguments like 'UFOs could be disguised as aircraft' or 'things can be silent', which he deems unscientific as they rely on unproven possibilities rather than known facts. He highlights the common tendency for witnesses to overestimate object size by a factor of 10, which, when considered, makes the 'silence' of an object more plausible. Henke also notes GEP's apparent dismissal of cases with few witnesses, while highlighting cases with only one witness as significant.

He further criticizes GEP's handling of the 'Hochheim' case, calling it a spectacular example that was downplayed by 0.M. but promoted by others. The disappearance of a tape recording related to this case is also noted with suspicion.

Henke concludes that the GEP's approach is driven more by emotion and bureaucratic pedantry than by scientific methodology, leading to a lack of cooperation and a reluctance to commit to definitive conclusions. He suggests GEP's actions are aimed at protecting their own 'UFO' status rather than pursuing objective truth, citing their dismissal of older cases and their selective marketing of certain reports.

Article: BÜCHER (Books) - UFOS so rund wie Untertassen: Unbekannte Flugobjekte

This section reviews the book "UFOS - so rund wie Untertassen: Unbekannte Flugobjekte" (UFOs - Round Like Saucers: Unknown Flying Objects), the German edition of a book from the Prisma Verlag. The reviewer notes that the content is not new, as they had seen the English original. The book covers various topics related to UFOs, including explanations, alleged cover-ups, and analyses. The German preface by Illobrand von Ludwiger, co-founder of MUFONces, is criticized for creating the impression that all 'UFO' phenomena are genuinely unexplained. The reviewer questions the statistic of 100,000 unexplained sky phenomena, contrasting it with CENAP's high rate of explanation (over 99%). The article emphasizes CENAP's methodology of prioritizing quality over quantity in case analysis. It quotes physicist Burkhard Heim on the futility of accumulating reports without rigorous analysis. Despite a critical preface, the book is recommended for addressing important fundamental issues and clarifying positions, although the presentation of the Frank Fontaine 'abduction' case as authentic is questioned.

Article: ASTRO - Warnung (15.5.-15.6.87) (Astro - Warning)

This section provides astronomical information for May 15th to June 15th, 1987. Jupiter is expected to become visible in the eastern sky after May 20th, but its rising times will be late at night. Saturn will be visible all night, reaching its peak brightness in June and having a rendezvous with Antares on June 11th. Mars will be faint, and Venus, though brighter, will also be difficult to see. Meteor showers are predicted throughout June, with peaks around the 8th and 14th.

Congress 87 Information

This section provides details for the 4th International UFO Congress, scheduled for July 10-12, 1987, in London. It outlines the various components available for booking, including day attendance, a congress dinner, and film evenings. Overnight stays are also offered. The prices are listed, with a discount for booking all three days. The venue is the London Business School. The organizers are EYECATCHERS AUDIO-VISUAL, and the secretariat is located in Burgess Hill, Sussex. The final program is not yet complete, but speakers from around the world, including delegates from ICUR and MUFON, are expected. A booking slip is provided for attendees.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of UFO phenomena and the organizations that investigate them. There is a strong emphasis on scientific methodology, skepticism, and the psychological factors that can influence witness testimony and interpretation. The editorial stance appears to favor rigorous, evidence-based analysis and is critical of approaches that rely on superstition, emotional reasoning, or bureaucratic processes. The conflict between CENAP's analytical, skeptical approach and GEP's perceived less rigorous methods is a central focus. The magazine promotes a stance that prioritizes identifying mundane explanations (IFO) over speculative hypotheses (UFO/UAP) when evidence is insufficient or ambiguous.