Inforespace - No 106 - 2003

Magazine Overview

Title: inforespace
Issue: 106
Volume: 32nd year
Date: June 2003
Publisher: SOBEPS (Société Belge d'Etude des Phénomènes Spatiaux)
Country: Belgium
Language: French

Editorial: The Question of Extraterrestrial Life and Ufology's Stigma

The editorial, by Michel Bougard, President of SOBEPS, opens by referencing recent publications that discuss the possibility of extraterrestrial life. He notes that while the scientific community is increasingly open to the idea of life beyond Earth, the concept of extraterrestrial visitors remains largely in the realm of speculation, often dismissed as utopian or pseudoscientific. Bougard highlights the ongoing debate, citing a "Café des sciences" event where scientists discussed the probability of extraterrestrial life but were hesitant to accept visitation. He criticizes the scientific community's persistent stigma against ufology, suggesting that external, significant events might be needed to shift perspectives. The editorial also briefly mentions the passing of Michel Bounias and the retirement of Jean-Pierre Petit.

Dossier 1: Belgian UFO Wave - An Exceptional Dossier

This section introduces a comprehensive dossier on the Belgian UFO wave that occurred from autumn 1989 to summer 1991. The dossier, published as a 504-page book by SOBEPS, is described as essential for anyone interested in the subject. It includes:

• A preface by Jean-Pierre Petit (CNRS).
• A day-by-day history of the events and SOBEPS's investigations.
• Media coverage from international press, TV, and radio.
• Analysis of photographic and video evidence.
• Collaboration with the Air Force and Gendarmerie for radar data analysis.
• The evolving interest from officials and scientists, including a European study project.
• Reports on triangular UFOs abroad and the American wave of 1983-84.
• An examination of "Stealth" technology.
• Statistical analyses of the wave.
• Personal conclusions from the book's authors.
• A postface by General Wilfried De Brouwer (Air Force).

The book contains numerous unpublished cases and over 200 illustrations, including color photos.

Dossier 2: Belgian UFO Wave - An Unresolved Enigma

This part of the dossier discusses SOBEPS's second activity report on the Belgian wave, published in 1994. It presented political and scientific challenges based on tens of thousands of investigation reports. Key elements include:

• A preface by Isabelle Stengers (philosopher and historian of sciences) questioning the wave's "anomalous" nature.
• The history of observations and significant cases reported after the first SOBEPS report.
• Detailed analysis of the wave's characteristics, including flight patterns, structures, and physical effects.
• A complete analysis of the Petit-Rechain photograph.
• Coverage of daytime sightings, particularly on November 29, 1989, preceding the Eupen wave.
• Reactions from the scientific world and media coverage.
• Comparison of how media influenced witness testimonies.
• Methods for new research based on available observations and analyses.
• Hypotheses regarding meteorological disturbances and radar data for the March 30-31, 1990 episode (F-16 radars).
• Prospects for scientific ufology and appropriate methodologies.
• The role of ufological research in democracy and political actions by SOBEPS.

The two books (VOB 1 and VOB 2) are offered together for €37, or separately for €26. Payment details are provided for bank transfers.

"On nous écrit": Correspondence and Analysis

This section features a letter from Wim van Utrecht, responding to an article by Patrick Ferryn in issue 104. Van Utrecht critically analyzes UFO cases, particularly the Chaumont-Gistoux observation from August 22, 2001, and the Eupen sighting from November 29, 1989. He suggests that many observed phenomena, including those in Chaumont-Gistoux, can be explained by flares (fusées éclairantes) due to their visual characteristics and behavior, drawing parallels with cases in New Jersey, Stonehenge, Phoenix, and Greifswald.

Patrick Ferryn, in his response and subsequent articles, defends his analysis and the evidence presented. He addresses Van Utrecht's points, particularly concerning the Eupen case and the possibility of Venus being mistaken for a UFO. Ferryn emphasizes the need for on-site investigation and detailed analysis, arguing that Van Utrecht's explanations are often too hasty or based on incomplete information. He highlights the difficulty of explaining the observed phenomena solely by conventional means, especially given the duration, movement, and lack of typical flare characteristics in some sightings.

Chaumont-Gistoux: Response to Wim van Utrecht

Patrick Ferryn directly responds to Wim van Utrecht's critique. Ferryn acknowledges Van Utrecht's references to other cases but argues that his conclusion of the Chaumont-Gistoux case being explained by flares is premature. Ferryn points out that Van Utrecht likely did not see the full video evidence, which showed more objects and their movements over a longer period. Ferryn contrasts the Chaumont-Gistoux case, which occurred in daylight, with other cases that happened at night. He also discusses the Eupen case, noting that the "white ball" observation by gendarmes might be explained by optical phenomena related to ice crystals, similar to parhelia (sun dogs), but the movement of the luminous points remains enigmatic.

Military Investigation of Chaumont-Gistoux Case

Ferryn recounts his visit to the Beauvechain military base to consult with experts about the Chaumont-Gistoux sightings. He met with Commandant Philippe Mosselmans and other specialists. Their unanimous conclusion was that the objects in the videos were not military aircraft or projectiles. They confirmed no military activity occurred on the dates of the sightings. The experts also dismissed the possibility of flares, citing their limited altitude, duration, and typical trajectory, which did not match the observed phenomena. They also ruled out balloons with light sources due to strict air traffic control regulations near the base.

Further Observations and Analysis

Another observation from Chaumont-Gistoux on July 28, 2002, is reported, where witnesses observed a similar luminous "ball" for ten minutes. This time, the object was closer, and a dark gray, matte rectangle was observed vertically above the light source. The witness estimated the light's size and the rectangle's height.

Hamme-Mille Observation

Gerard Grêde reports on observations from Hamme-Mille, near Beauvechain, on August 3, 2002. Five family members witnessed three stationary, orange, well-defined luminous objects in the sky. The objects moved in a specific pattern, forming a diagonal line and then a slash before disappearing. The witnesses were convinced it was not a natural phenomenon and noted the proximity of the Beauvechain military base.

Expert Opinions on Flares and Other Explanations

Ferryn consulted pyrotechnics specialists who generally agreed that standard flares could not account for the observed characteristics, such as duration, movement, and lack of smoke. He also explored the possibility of Bengal fire kites or balloons, but these also presented limitations. The wind conditions on the nights of the observations are noted as potentially significant.

Editorial Stance on UFO Classification

The editorial section "États d'âmes..." clarifies SOBEPS's approach to classifying phenomena as UFOs. It emphasizes that they do not label every unusual aerial event as a UFO. Instead, they follow a rigorous process of elimination, investigating natural explanations, misidentifications, and confusions before classifying a case as "unidentified." They stress that this does not automatically imply an extraterrestrial origin but rather a lack of a conventional explanation based on current knowledge and investigation.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently promotes a rigorous, evidence-based approach to ufology, emphasizing detailed investigation, witness testimony analysis, and the elimination of conventional explanations. There is a clear stance against hasty conclusions and a commitment to scientific methodology. The editorial team acknowledges the skepticism surrounding ufology but defends the value of their work in seeking to understand unexplained phenomena. The issue highlights the ongoing debate between those who seek conventional explanations and those who consider more unconventional possibilities, such as extraterrestrial visitation, while maintaining a cautious and analytical perspective.

This issue of Inforespace, dated December 2002, features a prominent cover story titled "Greifswald et les \"sceptiques\"" (Greifswald and the \"Skeptics\") by Auguste Meessen, a physicist and emeritus professor. The magazine's overall focus appears to be on UFO phenomena, critical analysis, and the challenges faced by researchers in the field.

Greifswald and the "Skeptics" by Auguste Meessen

Auguste Meessen begins by addressing the reactions UFO phenomena elicit, particularly the quasi-obsessive rejection from those who identify as \"skeptics\". He criticizes the ambiguity of the term, referencing Michael Shermer's definition of a true skeptic as a \"truth seeker; an interrogator who has not yet arrived at a definitive conviction\". Meessen distinguishes this from those who claim to hold \"THE TRUTH\" and aggressively combat any contradictory evidence. He introduces Werner Walter, president of CENAP and author of \"UFOs Die Wahrheit\", as an example of such a \"skeptic\".

Meessen scrutinizes Walter's book, specifically his chapter on the Greifswald UFO case. Walter dismisses the event as being caused by \"ultra-light aircraft governed by adventurous pilots, experimental private aircraft and large format RPVs (remote-controlled aircraft) launched from military bases\". Meessen points out that Walter did not investigate the site himself, relying on a pre-determined conclusion that no real UFOs exist. Walter's account of the Greifswald event, which involved two groups of lights observed by 50 inhabitants (though one newspaper article cited 100 witnesses), is presented as a distortion of history.

Meessen contrasts Walter's approach with that of Illobrand von Ludwiger, who published detailed reports on the Greifswald case based on video footage, photographs, and witness interviews. Von Ludwiger's reports, including one from 1994, describe unusual luminous phenomena. A pilot reported observing an object that entered a Y-formation at high speed and then stopped instantly.

Werner Walter, according to Meessen, did not conduct on-site investigations. In July 1993, he solicited witness accounts through newspaper ads but received only one response, from a physics teacher named Gero S., whom von Ludwiger already knew. This witness described a \"luminous phenomenon\" near Poseritz, consisting of bright lights resembling \"white luminous rockets\". The formation appeared to rotate and then three \"external stars\" faded, followed by the internal cluster shrinking to a single central spot before disappearing.

Walter's book is criticized for its lack of original investigation, despite his claims of having \"shattered\" the case in 1994. Meessen notes that Walter's \"breakthrough\" involved a statement from a German military service (Bundesamt für Wehrtechnik und Beschaffung) in 1994, confirming that \"tests corresponding to this were carried out that day\". Meessen views this as a superficial confirmation, lacking any real evidence, and notes that von Ludwiger was informed by another service (Luftwaffenamt) that Walter's information was denied.

Meessen concludes that Walter lacks scientific rigor and critical thinking, especially for someone claiming to be a \"skeptic\". He also references a previous analysis by Meessen himself on the Belgian UFO wave, where he denounced Walter's distortions and disinformation.

The 'D' Affair (2) by Franck Boitte

This section, the second part of an article by Franck Boitte, addresses the 'D' case, which involves a witness's account from April 1955. The article begins with an erratum regarding missing notes from a previous installment.

Boitte discusses the fundamental elements of the 'D' case, focusing on two key aspects: the alleged deliberate cover-up and the deterioration of the witness's health.

1. Deliberate Cover-up?

Boitte suggests that rather than a deliberate conspiracy, the case suffers from a \"consternating accumulation of incompetence and prejudice, mental imbecility and pretension\". He illustrates this with an anecdote about a mayor more concerned with subsidies than investigating an unexplained phenomenon.

2. Deterioration of the Witness's Health

Boitte expresses doubt that the UFO encounter was the sole cause of the witness's health decline. He suggests a more complex reality, possibly linked to the general incredulity and ridicule faced by those who report such experiences. He notes that while psychological support is offered to victims of attacks, \"ravis\" (abductees or those with strange experiences) are met with laughter and stigma.

Boitte draws parallels between the 'D' case and other famous cases, such as those of S. Desvergers (West Palm Beach, USA, 1952) and S. Michalak (Falkon Lake, Canada, 1967). In these cases, \"ufosceptics\" attributed the events to staged hoaxes, while other investigators suspected unknown radiation effects, possibly \"pulsed micro-waves\".

Boitte then lists 11 other cases exhibiting similar physiological effects, including paralysis, burns, and even death, often linked to luminous phenomena or UFO sightings. These cases span various locations and dates, from 1946 to 1975.

4. False UFOs but Real Helicopters?

Boitte systematically debunks conventional explanations for the 'D' case, particularly the Moon and Venus hypotheses, stating they do not fit the witness's account. He also dismisses wild birds and meteor showers. He focuses on the helicopter hypothesis, presenting seven arguments in its favor, including the proximity of a military training ground and the possibility of night training exercises. He mentions that French Air Force helicopters like the Sikorsky S-55 and Bell 47 were in use, and that \"silver filaments\" could have been military decoys.

However, Boitte then presents counter-arguments that weaken the helicopter theory. He questions the lack of noise, the witness's inability to identify standard helicopter parts, and the unusual \"light bell\" formation. He also points out the absence of pilots emerging from the craft and the peculiar nature of the \"silver filaments\". He concludes that the helicopter hypothesis fails to account for key elements of the witness's testimony.

5. Silver Filaments

Boitte discusses the silver filaments found in the 'D' case, comparing them to similar findings in other UFO reports, including those from Japan, West Virginia, and Italy. He notes that one analysis of filaments from Sonora, USA, indicated contamination by tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen.

6. Dr. Niemtzow and His Colleague Schuessler

This section introduces Dr. Richard C. Niemtzow, a physician and researcher of UFO-related medical injuries, and his colleague J.F. Schuessler. Boitte notes that Niemtzow has published little on UFOs but is listed as a consultant for GEPAN. He highlights that Niemtzow was once incorrectly identified as a Lt. Col. in the U.S. Air Force Medical Service, a claim later retracted.

Boitte recounts the witness 'D's claim of being visited by American scientists, including Niemtzow and Schuessler, who were part of an \"international commission of research on UFOs\". Boitte expresses skepticism about 'D's account, questioning how he would have known these names and suggesting that the witness might be fabricating details. He notes that Niemtzow is largely unknown to European ufologists.

Boitte also investigates Schuessler, finding references to him as president of VISIT (Vehicle Internal Systems Investigative Team), an organization that evaluated data from abductees. Schuessler is also mentioned as a MUFON spokesperson who presented on medical consequences of UFO encounters.

Boitte expresses his gratitude to various individuals for their contributions and insights, including Bruno Bousquet, Raymond Tercafs, Renaud Leclet, and Jean Sider.

Conclusions

Franck Boitte concludes that the 'D' case, despite its numerous weaknesses and the passage of time, remains significant. He reiterates his belief that the witness is sincere but acknowledges the case's shortcomings, such as the lack of detailed information about the dog's breed, the absence of collateral witness testimonies, and the uninvestigated military base at Cambous. He criticizes the lack of scientific rigor in the presentation of such cases, which hinders their acceptance by the scientific community.

Boitte revisits the hypothesis of micro-wave radiation as a potential cause for the witness's symptoms, referencing Dr. Niemtzow's work on \"auditory micro-wave effects\". He discusses how micro-waves can cause thermal pressure within the skull, potentially leading to auditory sensations. He also notes that micro-wave emissions can cause systemic effects beyond burns, impacting various bodily functions.

He questions whether micro-wave exposure could explain the dog's death and the blue discoloration of its skin, drawing a parallel to the effects of copper sulfate or rat poison, but ultimately finding these explanations insufficient. He also considers the possibility of radioactive emissions but dismisses it due to the lack of widespread effects.

Boitte concludes by stating that the UFO phenomenon is now a reality, having been present for over 50 years, and that it shows no signs of disappearing. He emphasizes the need for serious and concerted efforts to resolve the issue.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently adopts a critical yet open-minded approach to UFO phenomena. It emphasizes the importance of scientific rigor, detailed investigation, and the debunking of unsubstantiated claims, while also acknowledging the validity of certain unexplained cases. The editorial stance appears to favor a thorough, evidence-based examination of UFO reports, challenging both overly credulous believers and dogmatic skeptics. The recurring theme is the difficulty of conducting serious UFO research in the face of public skepticism, institutional indifference, and the inherent challenges of investigating phenomena that often lack concrete, verifiable evidence.

Title: Inforespace
Issue: 76-26
Date: Spring 2003 (indicated by the order date for the index)
Publisher: SOBEPS
Country: Belgium
Language: French

This issue of Inforespace, titled 'Notes & Références,' serves as a detailed bibliographic and reference guide for UFO research, particularly within the context of the magazine's previous publications and related works. It delves into the nuances of terminology, discusses specific cases, and promotes the organization's resources and activities.

Notes & Références Section

The 'Notes & Références' section is a critical component of this issue, providing a numbered list of references and discussions related to various aspects of ufology. Key points include:

• Terminology: Reference 1 addresses the term 'ravi' (meaning 'enraptured' or 'taken by violence'), common in some French regions, and criticizes its use in the context of UFO abductions, deeming it an insult to the psychological and physical suffering of abductees. It also draws a parallel to the derogatory term 'envahisseurs' used for Algerian refugees.
• Physiological Effects: References 2, 5, and 13 highlight the study of 'physiological effects' related to UFO encounters. C. Piens is cited for work on psychosomatic effects, and John F. Schuessler is mentioned for his catalog of UFO-related human physiological effects and an analysis of 400 cases, with his publications noted as quickly becoming out of print.
• Specific Cases:
• Reference 3 mentions the case of G. Nachtergael and the 'strange case of Falcon Lake.'
• Reference 4 discusses the Michalak case, where the Condon Commission's explanation of drunkenness and a fall on a barbecue grill is questioned for its inability to explain persistent health problems. It also notes that Desvergers, relaying information from 'Blue Book' and Klass, attempted to discredit Michalak by mentioning past legal troubles, a connection the author finds irrelevant.
• Reference 6 refers to 'Le premier dossier complet des Rencontres Rapprochées en France' by Figuet and Ruchon.
• Reference 10 critically examines a passage that links helicopter groups in Indochina and Algeria with a wave of saucer sightings in 1954, including observations of landings, vertical take-offs, and humanoids. The author expresses confusion over the logical connection presented.
• Reference 11 points to 'Chronique des Apparitions Extra-Terrestres,' case n° 316.
• Reference 13 cites A. Huneeus's 'UFO Issue Returns to the U.N.' from UFO Magazine and Schuessler's 'The Cash-Landrum UFO Incident,' noting these works are out of print.
• Research Approaches: Reference 14 points to 'Reverse Engineering a Ufo Sighting: What can and can't be learned?' by R. Haines and G. Smith in FSR. Reference 18 discusses the difficulty of proving the EM propulsion hypothesis in an initial contact and refers to an article by Pr. Meessen in issue 102 of the revue for a detailed explanation.
• Critique of Ufology: Reference 19 questions the care given to an animal in a case where its flesh was reportedly falling off, suggesting a lack of systematic approach. Reference 20 acknowledges that the lack of systematization of effects is a weakness in ufology, as pointed out by detractors.

SOBEPS Activities and Publications

Index of the First 100 Issues:

Page 40 introduces the 'Index des 100 premiers numéros' (Index of the First 100 Issues), compiled by Franck Boitte. This nearly 200-page index details articles from the first 100 issues of Inforespace, as well as related publications from SOBEPS. It is organized using 'trigrammes' (author identification system), by issue number and date, by author, title, and keywords. The index is presented as an essential tool for ufologists and new members to understand the magazine's content since 1972. It was available for order and expected to be shipped in early spring 2003.

SOBEPS Bookstore Service:

The 'SERVICE LIBRAIRIE DE LA SOBEPS' section lists several books available for purchase through SOBEPS:

• 'DES SOUCOUPES VOLANTES AUX OVNI' by Michel Bougard (SOBEPS edition): A collective work summarizing ufological research (12.5 € / 500 FB).
• 'MYSTERIEUSES SOUCOUPES VOLANTES' by Fernand Lagarde and the 'Lumières dans la Nuit' group (Albatros edition): A collective work discussing research by figures like Aimé Michel and Jacques Vallée (12.5 € / 500 FB).
• 'BLACK-OUT SUR LES SOUCOUPES VOLANTES' by Jimmy Guieu (Ommiun Littéraire edition): Described as a French ufology classic, recently reissued (10 € / 400 FB).
• 'ET SI LES OVNI N'EXISTAIENT PAS ?' by Michel Monnerie (Les Humanoïdes Associés edition): A book proposing a socio-psychological hypothesis for UFO explanations, suggesting misidentifications are common (10 € / 400 FB).

Payment details are provided for bank transfers and postal accounts, with specific instructions for international orders.

SOBEPS on the Internet:

The magazine announces the launch of the SOBEPS website at www.sobeps.org, noting that it is under construction and inviting feedback.

SOBEPS Pin:

A 'superb five-color pin' (35 mm wide) is offered for sale as a way to support SOBEPS and enhance personal collections. The price is 5 € (200 FB / 40 FF) or 12.5 € (500 FB / 90 FF) for three.

General Information about SOBEPS:

Page 3 provides a detailed overview of SOBEPS, describing it as a non-profit association focused on the rational observation and study of unidentified aerial phenomena. Its activities include investigations, information dissemination through a semiannual review (Inforespace), conferences, and debates. The association relies on volunteer work, and the publication schedule of Inforespace is not fixed due to this reliance. Members are encouraged to contribute information, collaborate on projects (translation, research, secretarial work), and report any unusual aerial phenomena they observe.

Secretariat - Library:

SOBEPS's premises and library are accessible to members by appointment on Saturdays between 2 PM and 6 PM. Administrative inquiries can be made at 02/521.74.04 during the same hours. Fax is available at 02/520.73.93. Testimonies can be reported at 02/524.28.48, which is a 24-hour answering service.

SOBEPS Slides:

The collection of SOBEPS slides is exhausted, but some exceptional series are still available with commentary:

• Three series of 12 color slides: 15 € per set (600 FB / 100 FF) or 42 € for all three sets (1700 FB / 280 FF).
• Two series of 12 slides on the Belgian wave of 1989-91: 18.5 € for both sets (750 FB / 120 FF).

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the meticulous documentation of UFO research, emphasizing the importance of accurate references, clear terminology, and systematic analysis. The editorial stance appears to be one of critical inquiry, questioning simplistic explanations and highlighting the need for rigorous methodology in ufology. There is a strong emphasis on the scientific study of phenomena, as evidenced by the promotion of SOBEPS's rational approach and the detailed referencing of academic and research publications. The magazine also actively promotes its own resources, such as the comprehensive index and available publications, positioning itself as a central hub for French-speaking ufological research.