inforespace510001

Magazine Overview

This issue of Inforespace, identified by its author Pierre Guérin and publication 'Inforespace n° 43', focuses on the 'Requiem pour une vague' (Requiem for a wave) – the significant wave of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) sightings that occurred in the United States between 1896 and 1897, commonly referred to as the 'Airship' wave.

The 1896-1897 'Airship' Wave: A Complex Phenomenon

The article begins by characterizing the UAP phenomenon as a 'coherent set of incoherent manifestations'. It highlights the 1896-1897 wave as a particularly problematic case for ufologists, as it has been used to support various theories, including the antiquity of UAP sightings, the 'mimicry' of UAP, the idea that UAP reflects human psychological structures, or that it is purely socio-psychological.

The author emphasizes the critical need to place the wave within its exact historical context, a step often neglected by ufologists. The primary source of information for this wave is newspaper clippings, which the article cautions are often unreliable due to journalistic practices that prioritize sensationalism over accuracy. The French wave of 1954 is cited as an example of how journalistic accounts can diverge significantly from reality after serious investigation.

Examining Specific Cases and Hoaxes

The article scrutinizes several specific reports from the 1896-1897 wave to illustrate the challenges in discerning truth from fabrication.

• The Michigan Case (April 14, 1897): A report from the 'Saginaw Courier Herald' about an object landing near Reynolds, Michigan, with a tall, unclothed figure emerging, is presented. However, a comparison with a report in the 'Lansing State Republican' reveals discrepancies in location and details, suggesting the latter may have regionalized a story to increase its impact. This highlights the unreliability of journalistic sources.
• The Aurora, Texas Case (April 17, 1897): This famous case involves an 'Airship' crashing and its pilot's remains being found. Investigations by ufologists like Donald Hanlon revealed that the story was likely a hoax created by E.E. Haydon to boost tourism in the declining town. Further evidence against the crash includes the absence of a windmill at the alleged crash site and no record of an anonymous grave in the local cemetery.
• The Hamilton Hoax: Another significant hoax is attributed to farmer Alexander Hamilton, whose sensational story is described as difficult to surpass. The article promises to revisit this case later.
• Misidentification of Natural Phenomena: The article acknowledges that, like all UAP reports, the 1896-1897 wave likely included misidentifications of natural phenomena, such as the moon and Venus, especially when viewed through clouds. The 'Kansas City Times' reported thousands observing a mysterious light on April 1, 1897, which the article suggests was likely a planet or star whose apparent movement was distorted by clouds.

The 'Airship' Itself: Description and Technological Context

The article then delves into the description of the 'Airship' as perceived by witnesses.

• Physical Description: The 'Airship' is generally described as a 'gigantic' fuselage, 30 to 50 meters long, moving horizontally. It often featured a cabin or cockpit, and sometimes had propellers resembling turbine wheels. Other noted equipment included projectors and anchor-like devices.
• Technological Context: The author emphasizes that at the time, there were no known human-made dirigibles operating in American skies, leading many to conclude the objects must be extraterrestrial. However, the article aims to demonstrate that this premise is flawed.

Early Aeronautical Developments

To counter the extraterrestrial hypothesis, the article provides a historical overview of early aeronautical efforts, particularly those that might have been mistaken for UAP:

• French Contributions: The article mentions the 'locomotive aérostatique' by Pétin in 1851, a large airship project that faced numerous setbacks and ultimately ended in disaster. Despite its failures, the public was aware of such machines from newspaper illustrations.
• American Ballooning: From 1850 to 1890, the US saw numerous free balloon flights for various purposes, including attempts at transatlantic crossings. Projects by John Wise and Thaddeus Lowe aimed to carry mail across the ocean.
• Marriott's AVITOR: In 1869, Frederick Marriott designed and tested the 'AVITOR', a steam-powered dirigible about ten meters long with lateral propellers and horizontal planes for steering. Its design is noted as similar to some 'Airship' descriptions.
• Henson and Stringfellow's Aerial Steam Carriage: The article also references the 1843 design by W.S. Henson and J. Stringfellow for an 'Aerial Steam Carriage', which bore resemblance to some observed 'Airships'.
• Langley's Aerodrome: Ponton Langley's 'Aerodrome' (a type of tandem-winged aircraft) achieved successful flights in 1896, observed by notable figures like Graham Bell.
• Other Propulsion Systems: The article discusses various propulsion methods considered or used in early aviation, including steam engines, gasoline engines (Langley), gas engines (Haenlein), reaction engines, and electric motors (Siemens, Tissandier brothers). Compressed air was also explored as a power source.

The 'Canulars' (Hoaxes) Section

This section specifically addresses the instructive nature of the hoaxes within the wave.

• Alexander Hamilton's Story: The article details Hamilton's elaborate story about an Airship landing, its occupants, and a strange incident involving a calf. This story is presented as a prime example of a well-constructed hoax, authenticated by local notables who were part of a 'club of liars'. The description of the Airship in Hamilton's account is linked to the dirigible of Campbell, which made a notable ascent in New York in 1889.
• Anchors and Propulsion: The presence of anchors on airships is explained as a standard feature for landing and stopping, not necessarily an alien device. The article also discusses the use of electric propulsion and other advanced (for the time) power sources, suggesting that the 'fantastic machinery' attributed to the 'Airship' might have been based on contemporary, albeit experimental, technology.

Specific Sightings and Explanations

• John Martin's Sighting (January 24, 1878): While predating the main wave, this sighting of a dark object is presented as an example of how ufologists might interpret ordinary phenomena. The article suggests it was likely a balloon, given the prevalence of balloon flights at the time.
• Oakland Sightings (November 22, 1896): Reports from Oakland described an Airship with four rotors. The article links this to Marriott's AVITOR and Henson and Stringfellow's design, suggesting journalistic illustrations may have influenced witness perceptions.
• Everest, Kansas Sighting (April 1, 1897): Witnesses observed an Airship with a canoe-shaped nacelle for an extended period. The article notes that transatlantic balloonists often carried lifeboats, explaining the canoe-like description.
• Texarkana, Texas Sighting (April 23, 1897): The observation of an 'aluminum' craft with occupants speaking an unknown language is discussed. The idea of compressed air as a power source is explored, referencing Victor Tatin's compressed-air aeroplanes.
• Merkel, Texas Sighting (April 26, 1897): The mention of an anchor falling from an Airship is explained in the context of standard landing procedures for dirigibles.
• Homan, Arkansas Sighting (April 20, 1897): Captain James Hooton's detailed report and sketch are highlighted as a particularly noteworthy case, though still subject to interpretation.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The overarching theme of this article is a critical examination of the 1896-1897 'Airship' wave, emphasizing skepticism towards sensationalized journalistic accounts and the tendency to interpret unknown phenomena as extraterrestrial. The author systematically debunks or contextualizes many of the wave's most famous incidents by linking them to contemporary aeronautical developments, known hoaxes, or misidentifications of natural phenomena. The editorial stance is one of historical and scientific rigor, aiming to demystify the wave by grounding it in the technological and social realities of the late 19th century. The article suggests that the 'Airship' sightings were largely a product of public fascination with new technologies, combined with journalistic exaggeration and a propensity for imaginative interpretation.

This issue of a French magazine, likely focused on ufology or historical mysteries, features an in-depth analysis of the "airship wave" that occurred in the United States in 1896-1897. The central piece, titled "Le ballon dirigeable propulsé par réacteur d'air comprimé" (The dirigible balloon propelled by compressed air reactor), examines witness testimonies and historical aeronautical developments to debunk the extraterrestrial hypothesis for these sightings.

Captain Hooton's Encounter

The article begins by recounting the experience of Captain Hooton in April 1897. He describes encountering a remarkable airship near "Iron Mountain." The object emitted a sound similar to a locomotive's air pump. Hooton observed its unique design, including a hull tapering to a point, widening towards the center, and three large metallic wheels with curved bars that became concave when turning. He noted the presence of men on board, one of whom was wearing tinted glasses and was busy repairing the airship's metal plating. The airship was described as having "aeroplanes" (wings) that emerged and pointed upwards during takeoff, with the wheels rotating rapidly. The craft then ascended swiftly and disappeared.

Analysis of Hooton's Description and Historical Context

The author praises Hooton's observational skills and notes that his description aligns with contemporary aeronautical concepts. The article draws parallels between Hooton's airship and the designs of early dirigibles, particularly the one by Austrian inventor Schwartz. It highlights that by the late 19th century, researchers were seriously considering rigid-framed dirigibles with high aerodynamic penetration coefficients, a concept that had been formulated as early as 1853.

The text then delves into the technical details of Hooton's description, focusing on the "aeroplanes" that lifted upwards during takeoff. It clarifies that the term "aeroplane" at the time referred to any planar surface involved in sustentation, propulsion, or balance, not necessarily winged aircraft as understood today. The article explains that these inclined planes likely served as elevators to facilitate vertical movement, acting as a form of depth control.

Propulsion and Mechanical Aspects

A significant portion of the analysis is dedicated to the more puzzling aspects of Hooton's account: the tubes expelling jets of gas and the six large lateral paddle wheels. The author discusses the possibility of steam or air propulsion, leaning towards compressed air based on Hooton's own statement and the absence of smoke or combustion.

The article extensively explores the history of experimental dirigibles and propulsion systems from the mid-19th century onwards. It mentions experiments by C.P. Fest (hot air jets), Russell Thayer (compressed air reactor), S. Bausset (ventilation reactor), and D.J. Pennington (orientable jet ventilator). This historical overview aims to demonstrate that compressed air technology was not uncommon and was being applied to dirigibles.

The Mystery of the Paddle Wheels

The author addresses the apparent paradox of the paddle wheels, which, if submerged in air, would not seem to provide propulsion due to opposing forces. However, Hooton's observation that the wheel bars were curved and became concave when turning is highlighted as a key detail. This suggests a variable geometry system, where the upper and lower parts of the blades might have functioned differently to achieve propulsion. The article references similar concepts in historical aeronautical designs.

Debunking the UFO Hypothesis

The core argument of the article is that the 1896/1897 airship sightings were not evidence of extraterrestrial visitors but rather the result of advanced, albeit sometimes experimental and unreliable, terrestrial technology. The author systematically refutes common ufological arguments:

1. "Plaquing the known onto the unknown": The article suggests that witnesses were accurately describing known, albeit advanced, technology of their time, not inventing phenomena.
2. "Too many airships": The author argues that the number of sightings can be explained by the existence of numerous experimental dirigibles, combined with misidentifications, hoaxes, and journalistic embellishments. An 80% reduction rate, typical for UFO data, would leave only a handful of credible cases, easily explained by a few experimental craft.
3. "Superior performance": The article counters this by citing historical examples of balloons achieving impressive speeds and distances, suggesting that experimental dirigibles, especially when aided by wind, could achieve remarkable performance for the era.

The Fate of Experimental Aircraft

Regarding the question of why these advanced airships seemingly disappeared, the article points to the inherent dangers and fragility of early aviation. It lists several tragic accidents involving balloonists and early airship pioneers, emphasizing that experimental aircraft built with wood and canvas, often using flammable gases like hydrogen or town gas, were prone to catastrophic failures, especially in adverse conditions or during landings. The disappearance of these craft without a trace is attributed to crashes in remote areas, water bodies, or forests, or even complete destruction by fire.

Mechanical Failures and Distress Calls

The text details instances of airships experiencing mechanical problems, such as being immobilized on the ground for repairs (Hooton's case) or suffering explosions and fires. It recounts a specific incident where an airship lost altitude due to an explosion and fire, only to rise again and disappear. Another significant event involved a distress call found attached to a piece of metal, indicating an airship crew was lost and unable to control their craft, drifting somewhere over Michigan.

Conclusion: A Socio-Psychological vs. Historical Explanation

The article critiques the "socio-psychological" or "reductive" approach favored by some ufologists, particularly referencing the work of a theorist named Monnerie. The author argues that Monnerie's model, which dismisses the 1897 airships as mere myth or rumor, is flawed because it ignores the historical reality of aeronautical development. The article posits that the 1897 wave was a complex phenomenon involving both myth and reality – the myth being the sensationalized reporting and the reality being the existence of advanced, albeit imperfect, dirigibles.

Ultimately, the article concludes that the 1896/1897 airship sightings represent a fascinating chapter in the history of aviation, showcasing the ingenuity and ambition of early aeronautical pioneers. It suggests that a rigorous historical and technical analysis, rather than a purely socio-psychological or extraterrestrial interpretation, provides the most plausible explanation for these intriguing events.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently adopts a skeptical yet open-minded approach to unexplained phenomena. The editorial stance strongly favors historical and scientific explanations over sensationalist or extraterrestrial theories. The article emphasizes the importance of understanding the technological context of the time and critically evaluating witness testimonies. It advocates for a thorough study of aeronautical history to better comprehend historical sightings, suggesting that many "mysteries" can be resolved by examining the evolution of human technology and the limitations and dangers inherent in early experimental flight.