EWT03

Magazine Overview

This issue of NOTICE, published by GESAG as part of the European Working Team (EWT), is Volume 1, Number 3, dated March 1982. The publication is produced by Edition Jacques BONABOT in Bruges, Belgium. It features a list of members of the European Working Team and includes significant articles on the study of physical traces associated with UFO events.

List of Members

The issue welcomes Michel Figuet to the team and notes that he, along with Jean-Louis Ruchon, is the author of 'Le Premier Dossier des Rencontres Rapprochées en France'. The list of members includes:

• Vicente Juan BALLESTER OLMOS (Espana)
• Jacques BONABOT (Belgique)
• Michel COSTE (France)
• Michel FIGUET (France)
• Alain GAMARD (France)
• Anders LILJGREN (Sverige)
• Jean-Luc OVERAL (Belgique)
• Jenny RANDLES (England)
• Peter ROGERSON (England)
• Jean-Pierre TROADEC (France)
• Maurizio VERGA (Italia)

Michel Figuet's contact address is provided: 'Le Potier d'Etain', Allée de Savoie ZI, F-26300 Bourg-de-Péage, France.

Listing of French Cases with Entities

A significant portion of the magazine is dedicated to a listing of 275 French cases involving entities, compiled by Alain Gamard. The listing includes details such as date, hour, location, department number, and the witness's name or number of witnesses. The classification system used (HUMCAT) and the quality of the case (negative, insufficient data, doubtful, high credibility) are also indicated.

Examples from the listing include:

• 1906 22:00 La Celle-sous-Gouzon
• Summer30/2 ev.ng Valence
• 03.1931 15:00 btwn Cannes & La Bocca
• Summer1944 15:30 Toulon-sur-Arroux
• 07.1947 15:00 Amfreville-la-Mi-Voie
• 20.05.1950 16:00 Cours-les-Barres
• Summer1951 21:00 Beausoleil
• 10.04.1952 21:30 nr Nîmes
• 04.09.1952 no Autun
• 05.53/4 00:30 Cagnes-sur-Mer
• 02.1954 14:00 Lombez
• Summer54/6 15:00 Chateau de Buron
• 08.1954 mo.ng nr Saint-Sauveur-la-Sagne
• 08.1954 22:30 "Montagne des Alouettes"
• 10.09.1954 22:30 Quarouble
• 17.09.1954 08:30 Omont
• 19.09.1954 22:00 btwn Cenon & Vouneuil-sur-Vienne
• 23.09.1954 03:00 nr Moussoulens
• 27.09.1954 aft.n Perpignan
• 28.09.1954 22:30 Saint-Amand-Montrond
• 30.09.1954 16:30 Marcilly-sur-Vienne
• 10.1954 night Walscheid
• 10.1954 05:00 nr Metz
• 01.10.1954 19:50 btwn Lormaison & St-Crépin-Ibouvillers
• 02.10.1954 22:00 Bergerac
• 03.10.1954 05:45 Bressuire
• 04.10.1954 18:00 Villers-le-Tilleul
• 05.10.1954 04:00 Loctudy
• 06.10.1954 23:30 Cozes
• 07.10.1954 mo.ng Mendionde
• 08.10.1954 11:45 Soissons
• 09.10.1954 16:00 nr Carcassonne
• 09.10.1954 19:30 Pournoy-la-Chétive
• 10.10.1954 06:15 Marville-Moutier-Brulé
• 11.10.1954 02:25 Monteux
• 11.10.1954 04:00 "Le Fassié", Clamecy
• 11.10.1954 night Montbazin
• 12.10.1954 21:00 Orchamps-Vennes
• 12.10.1954 22:30 Erbray
• 13.10.1954 19:35 Toulouse
• 14.10.1954 20:00 Brienne
• 14.10.1954 21:00 btwn Domart-en-Ponthieu & Condé-Folie
• 15.10.1954 19:00 btun Le Vigan & Valleraugue
• 15.10.1954 19:00 Nîmes-Courbessac
• 16.10.1954 05:30 Malvezy
• 16.10.1954 24:00 Beaufort
• A16.10.1954 night nr Lesparre
• 18.10.1954 Pons
• 18.10.1954 10:00 Moutier-Rozeille
• 18.10.1954 20:40 nr St-Samson-la-Poterie
• 18.10.1954 21:00 btwn Royan & Saintes
• 18.10.1954 22:45 Le Vezenay
• 19.10.1954 15:30 Ygrande
• 20.10.1954 02:30 Raon-l'Etape
• 22.10.1954 15:30 Lewarde
• 22.10.1954 19:15 nr Lewarde
• A23.10.1954 Wittenheim
• 24.10.1954 17:30 Les Egauts, nr Ste Catherine-s-Riverie
• 26.10.1954 22:30 Alleyrat (La Badière)
• 27.10.1954 21:30 Les Jonquerets-de-Livet
• 11.1954 06:00 Fréjus
• 05.11.1954 10:10 La Roche-en-Breuil
• 18.11.1954 06:00 Bomel-en-Saint-Maudan

Preliminary Notes on a Study of Physical Traces in Association with UFO Events

This section, authored by Maurizio Verga, discusses the nature and significance of physical traces left by UFO events. Verga notes that traces are crucial as they provide physical proof of a tangible phenomenon, helping to refute purely psychological interpretations. However, he points out that the concept of 'physical proof' has been used to support the 'extraterrestrialist' contention that UFOs are spacecraft, a belief that is declining.

Verga highlights the difficulty in conceptualizing trace creation, mentioning theories involving 'interdimensional entities' or paranormal phenomena. He states that trace evidence is contradictory, with some UFO sightings leaving no traces while others do. This variability suggests that the phenomenon may not have strict criteria or may be influenced by unknown factors, possibly linked to individual witness characteristics.

He questions the idea that traces prove the material nature of UFOs by considering natural phenomena that can produce similar marks (fungii, plant sickness, lightning, animal habits, whirlwinds, tornadoes, helicopter slipstreams, exfoliation, man-made impacts like cars, mowers, fires). Verga warns that the appearance of a trace after a local UFO sighting can easily lead to its connection with 'alien activity', even if no UFO was seen. He emphasizes that both material factors (notoriety) and psychological factors (stimulation by a 'flap') can play a role, and that concrete evidence, even if spurious, can make a case seem more credible.

Verga also discusses the problem of investigators who may be biased by their desire to find evidence, leading them to overlook conventional explanations and readily accept traces as proof of alien technology. He notes that outright hoaxes are also a factor, perpetrated for various reasons.

Comments Regarding Physical Trace Cases

Maurizio Verga shares his personal experiences with physical trace cases from 1974-1981. He reviewed many cases and found that out of 14 landing cases, 8 resulted in no apparent traces, and three were explained as landed helicopters. The remaining five unexplained cases involved other direct effects on witnesses or the environment.

Verga details the Risley, Cheshire incident (FSR vol 24 n°2) where a white amorphous figure was seen, and the witness suffered burns and memory loss. His radio transceiver was destroyed. Although no UFO was directly involved, Verga considers it part of the UFO enigma due to its consistent features. He notes the witness later contracted kidney cancer and cysts, which began months after the encounter, raising the possibility of a link to beam radiation, though the witness makes no such connection.

He also mentions investigating a flattened patch of grass near the Risley site but refused to link it to a hypothetical UFO, attributing it to the area being used as a rubbish tip. He contrasts this with less scrupulous investigators who might have used such markings as evidence of a landing.

Verga briefly mentions other cases with 'traces', such as footprints at Rainhill (May 1975) and cut grass at Leigh (May 1976), but expresses doubt about their direct link to UFOs.

Jenny Randles' Contribution

Jenny Randles provides her perspective on the trace phenomenon, referencing her published books. She notes that her research for an upcoming book, 'UFO Reality', using a sample of UK cases between 1975-1979 (the JR SET), found only seven cases involving ground traces out of over 1100.

Randles concludes that while something might be found at a site, its relevance could be wrongly assumed. She suggests focusing on traces found when the witness clearly spots the UFO causing them. She posits that the scarcity of good trace evidence might be due to the phenomenon being primarily psychological, or that genuine trace-producing phenomena are rare.

She remains certain that some cases involve physical energy transfer and a material phenomenon, but sees no reason to bridge the gap between 'real' and 'alien'. She emphasizes that trace evidence alone is not sufficient to prove alien involvement and that its study is valuable but should not be the sole basis for conclusions.

Randles concludes with a series of questions for the EWT members to stimulate discussion on trace cases, their significance, and the methodology for investigating them. She advocates for courage to rethink basic assumptions and a search for understanding rather than clinging to belief.

Postscript and Call for Discussion

Jenny Randles emphasizes that her contribution is a preliminary outline and that the real work must now begin. She requests help from EWT members in terms of data and ideas for planning the study. She poses eleven questions to stimulate discussion:

1. Knowledge of physical traces.
2. Sufficiency of knowledge for trace data significance.
3. Can physical evidence prove the reality of the UFO phenomenon?
4. Can traces fit traditional interpretative models (e.g., ETH)?
5. Can traces be explained by unknown natural/artificial phenomena or hoaxes?
6. What do traces associated with a presumed UFO mean?
7. Personal experience investigating trace cases.
8. Role of physical traces in the UFO enigma.
9. Recommended methodology for trace case investigation.
10. How should trace effects be studied?
11. Is there a single cause for the wide range of trace effects?

Publication Information and Donations

The document is for E.W.T. and NOTICE, with reference JRS 820131. Donations of a minimum of 250 Belgian Francs are welcome to support the edition of NOTICE. Payment details are available in the BULLETIN GESAG, with Mrs. Jenny Deduytsche as the contact person for payments.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of physical trace evidence in UFO investigations. The editorial stance, particularly from Jenny Randles, is one of cautious skepticism towards claims of alien technology based solely on trace evidence. There is a strong emphasis on the need for scientific rigor, the consideration of natural explanations and hoaxes, and the potential psychological aspects of UFO experiences. The publication encourages open discussion and a critical rethinking of established beliefs within the ufological community.