CENAP-REPORT

Magazine Overview

Title: CENAP-REPORT
Issue: Nr. 148
Date: 6.88 (June 1988)
Publisher: CENAP-Mannheim
Price: DM 3,90

This issue of the CENAP-REPORT, published by CENAP-Mannheim, focuses on UFO investigations and astronomical phenomena, with a prominent cover headline "INVASION von der WEGA? VENUS, the UFO-QUEEN!". The magazine details the activities and approach of CENAP, a private organization dedicated to studying unidentified aerial phenomena.

CENAP: An Independent UFO Research Network

The introductory section on page 2 describes CENAP as a private, independent organization that has investigated approximately 350 reported UFO sightings since 1976. The organization approaches its investigations with scientific rigor and a 'criminalistic' flair. CENAP representatives have been invited to the German Ministry of Defense and have been recommended by the Baden-Württemberg Ministry of the Interior as a point of contact for UFO reports. Agencies like the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt and Flugsicherung Frankfurt also refer UFO sighting reports to CENAP. CENAP's research is characterized as "meticulous," "objective," and "critical." They investigate both current and historical UFO events, maintaining a large network of correspondents and a significant archive of information in text and image. CENAP also engages in "psychohygiene" to combat occultism and superstition and aims to expose charlatans and manipulation by popular authors and the media. The CENAP REPORT is their monthly publication, with a yearly subscription costing DM 40.

Case Study: The Ludwigshafen UFO (April-May 1988)

The main article, "INVASION VON DER WEGA" by Werner Walter, details a series of mysterious sightings in Ludwigshafen between April 2 and May 3, 1988. The Glück and Gögdak families reported observing a luminous object multiple times. The initial sighting on April 2nd by Luise Glück described a blinking object with changing colors (green, red, silver-white) that moved stepwise. The observation lasted for about 35 minutes. Her mother also observed the object, describing it as larger than a star and changing shape, appearing as a light sphere, an egg, a boomerang, or a triangle. The object was reported to move from northeast to northwest, ascending slightly.

The object reappeared on Easter Sunday and was observed by both families. The Gögdak family, neighbors of the Glücks, also witnessed the phenomenon. Subsequent observations were hampered by cloudy weather. On April 11th, Herr Gögdak, a colleague of Werner Walter, reported the sighting. Walter initially harbored skepticism, considering Gögdak's reputation as a prankster, but was convinced by the detailed description.

Mr. Gögdak described the UFO as "larger than a 5 DM coin" to the naked eye, round, white, and moving to the right, sometimes returning. He noted it "hopped," "flew arcs," and "wobbled." A pulsating red light appeared on its left side, making it resemble "a traffic light in the sky." He also observed a "thick star" to the west that seemed to dip towards the ground. A passing airplane caused the UFO to blink and pulsate intensely, as if reacting to the aircraft's proximity. The witness emphasized that the object was significantly larger and brighter than nearby stars.

Werner Walter provided the witnesses with CENAP questionnaires. A sketch by Luise Glück is included on page 3. Walter also contacted astronomer Rudolf Henke to calculate star positions.

On April 19th, Walter visited the families in Ludwigshafen. Despite cloudy skies, they discussed the events. Luise Glück was identified as the primary driver of the UFO fascination.

Further observations on April 19th noted the object's movement from left to right and slightly upwards. The object was described as a "light mass" with no distinct shape changes by Luise's mother. The object appeared almost every evening, slightly later and higher, moving slightly to the right and up. The witnesses confirmed seeing the moon and a bright star, which they identified as Venus. They noted that the UFO was significantly larger and brighter than this star.

The witnesses differentiated the UFO from stars by its size, blinking, color changes, and shape alterations. The object was described as moving in a "jerky" manner to the right and up. The sky was clear, and there was light wind.

Astronomical Explanations and Misidentifications

Page 4 discusses the difficulty in distinguishing the object from stars, especially with the naked eye. The object's characteristics, such as its movement and blinking, were analyzed. Rudolf Henke calculated the position of the star Arcturus as a potential explanation. Between April 19th and 22nd, there were further UFO alarms. On April 22nd, witnesses reported seeing the UFO again, but Walter and others could not confirm it, suggesting it might have been a star.

Page 5 includes a newspaper clipping from the MANNHEIMER MORGEN dated April 23, 1988, titled "Ein UFO über der Gartenstadt?" The article mentions CENAP and Werner Walter investigating the sightings. The article quotes Walter suggesting that many people might have seen lights but were afraid of being labeled "UFO-spinners." A computer program was used to locate the object's position, placing it below the Big Dipper constellation.

On the night of April 23rd/24th, the UFO reappeared. Gögdak took 8 photos with a FUJICA ST701 camera and a 300mm telephoto lens. The photos revealed shape changes, described as boomerang-shaped with red and green pulsating lights. The object was seen moving to the right and then looping. The total observation time was about 45 minutes. The object appeared as a bright "light circle" to the naked eye, but the telephoto lens revealed deformations.

Page 6 describes an encounter where a plane flew close to the UFO. The witnesses noted the UFO's intense blinking and pulsating, possibly in reaction to the aircraft. The object was described as being about 45-50 degrees high in the eastern sky. The witnesses were certain it was not a star.

Page 7 delves into the psychological aspect of UFO belief. The article suggests that the phenomena observed might have been the star Wega, and that the witnesses' expectations and the influence of media reports could have contributed to their interpretation. The interactions with aircraft were noted, with witnesses feeling the UFO reacted to them. The article questions what might have happened if a recognized UFOlogist had declared the sightings as genuine UFOs.

Case Study: Peter P. from Fürstenfeldbruck (November 1987)

Page 8 presents a letter from Peter P. of Fürstenfeldbruck, who contacted CENAP after reading a UFO report. He describes observing a "star" that began to move westward, then traced a semicircle about 50 meters above a forest, and hovered for about two hours. He reported that the "object" responded to light signals with erratic movements, including zig-zagging and ascending rapidly. He also mentioned seeing two small "companions" with the object when viewed through a telescope. Peter P. believed it was a UFO, but his brother, who had a telescope, suggested it might be Jupiter. The object was described as having a candle-like flicker and sometimes swelling or disappearing.

Case Study: Venus and UFO-like phenomena (Spain)

Pages 9 and 10 discuss several cases where astronomical phenomena, particularly the planet Venus, were mistaken for UFOs. The article "ASTRO-STIMULI VENUS" by Manuel Borraz (translated by U. Magin) presents three examples:

1. October 14, 1974 (Zamora, Spain): Two brothers and their cousin reported a strong, red, "spongy" light source that appeared to be two stacked plates, moving and rotating. The object was photographed, but the photos only showed a small light point. The authors suggest this could have been Venus appearing low on the horizon under specific atmospheric conditions.
2. May 30, 1975 (Lérida, Spain): A couple observed a bright light source that appeared to move erratically, changing position and size, about 2 meters above the ground. They initially thought it was a UFO. The report suggests this could also be Venus, noting that the witnesses' descriptions of its movement and appearance might have been influenced by the "flying saucer psychosis" prevalent at the time.
3. January 1, 1979 (Lérida, Spain): Three individuals reported a light accompanying their car. They initially considered it a plane or satellite but later thought it might be a UFO. The report suggests this could be Venus or a similar celestial body.

Conclusion and Editorial Stance

The magazine concludes by discussing the difficulty in definitively identifying UFOs and the role of witness testimony, optical effects, and psychological factors in misinterpretations. The article on page 7 poses the question: "What would have happened if a real UFOlogist had identified the sighting as a genuine UFO?" This implies a critical stance towards sensationalism and highlights the importance of rigorous investigation. The overall stance of CENAP, as presented in this issue, is one of thorough, scientific investigation into anomalous aerial phenomena, with a willingness to consider astronomical explanations and debunk misidentifications.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue of CENAP-REPORT strongly emphasizes the importance of scientific investigation and critical analysis in understanding UFO phenomena. A recurring theme is the potential for misidentification of celestial bodies, particularly Venus, as UFOs. The magazine highlights the psychological factors that can influence witness perception and the role of media in shaping public opinion. CENAP positions itself as a serious research organization, distinct from sensationalist reporting, aiming to provide objective explanations for reported sightings. The editorial stance is skeptical yet open-minded, prioritizing evidence-based conclusions and debunking hoaxes or misinterpretations while acknowledging the existence of unexplained phenomena.