Inforespace - No 111 - 2005

Magazine Overview

Title: Inforespace
Issue: n° 111
Date: December 2005
Volume: 34th year

This issue of Inforespace, published by SOBEPS (Société Belge d'Etude des Phénomènes Spatiaux), is dedicated to ufology and spatial phenomena. It features a comprehensive dossier on the analysis of the famous Petit-Rechain UFO photograph, alongside articles discussing European ufological collaborations and the evolution of French UAP investigation groups.

Editorial: Premières Rencontres européennes d'Ufologie

The editorial discusses the first European Ufology Encounters held in Châlons-en-Champagne in October 2005. While SOBEPS declined to present, Professor Auguste Meessen gave a successful conference on "physical properties and propulsion of UFOs." A closed colloquium was also held by ufologists from various European countries to organize and federate European ufological research. SOBEPS was represented by Léon Brenig and Patrick Ferryn. The article highlights the necessity of strengthening cooperation and data exchange in ufology, emphasizing a rational approach and the use of modern IT tools. Key initiatives include the creation of a website (www.euroufo.net) by seven ufological organizations to share information and promote scientific approaches to the problem. The issue itself is presented as a reflection of this broader European project.

The Petit-Rechain Photograph: A State of the Question

This extensive section, authored by Patrick Ferryn, delves into the history and analysis of the Petit-Rechain photograph, taken in April 1990 during a wave of UFO sightings in Belgium. The photograph, a color slide, has been reproduced globally and subjected to numerous analyses. The author recounts the initial skepticism and the subsequent detailed examinations.

Initial Analysis and Skepticism

Ferryn describes the photograph as showing four diffuse luminous spots against a night sky, with three forming an isosceles triangle and a fourth in the center surrounded by a reddish halo. He notes the lack of foreground or background elements, making estimations of size and distance difficult. Initially, the SOBEPS considered the possibility of a hoax, especially after encountering dubious UFO photos presented by journalists. The photograph's details, such as the apparent movement of the lights and the triangular shape with 'broken' corners, were meticulously studied.

Scientific Investigations

Professor Auguste Meessen's earlier work is referenced, suggesting that ultraviolet radiation might explain discrepancies between witness descriptions and the photographic appearance of the lights. The analysis by the Royal Military School (ERM), led by Professor Marc Acheroy, is detailed. Acheroy's team digitized the slide and performed in-depth examinations. Their preliminary report in 1991 concluded that it was impossible to definitively prove the document was a fake, but also that its authenticity could not be guaranteed. Further analysis in 1993, published in VOB II, highlighted several key points:

• The document could not be proven to be a fake, unlike other 'fabricated' documents previously submitted.
• Even if a similar document could be created, it wouldn't prove the original was fake.
• The hypothesis of a hoax remained possible but not proven.
• If authentic, the object's origin (terrestrial or extraterrestrial) was not determined.

Acheroy noted that the slide was sharp in several places, and any blur was not due to incorrect focus or camera movement. He also observed that the red component highlighted the light shapes, and their size increased with wavelength, a characteristic not found in known fakes. The analysis also revealed a slight rotation of the triangular shape during the exposure, estimated between one and two seconds. The lights themselves appeared as 'luminous cords' suggesting ejection, but this was not definitive proof of propulsion.

Expert Opinions

François Louange, a French expert in photo analysis, examined the slide and stated that while the nocturnal cliché was rich in information, no definitive investigative path emerged. He noted that the apparent movement of the lights was inconsistent, suggesting they might have been activated sequentially. Louange concluded that while the object could be terrestrial, the witness testimony suggested it might be a genuine extraterrestrial vehicle.

Dr. Richard F. Haines, an American ufology specialist, also reviewed the slide. He noted the object's solid form and intense light sources, with the central one being of a different color. He acknowledged that while the object could be terrestrial, the witness accounts pointed towards an extraterrestrial origin.

Reconstitution Attempts and Criticisms

The article discusses various attempts to recreate the Petit-Rechain photograph, including those by Wim van Utrecht, Gaston Lecocq, Anne Leroy, Pierre Magain, and Marc Rémy. Magain and Rémy's reconstruction, using simple materials, was noted for its resemblance. However, Magain raised several objections, including the perceived inconsistency of the light movements with the triangle's movement and the claim that the ERM's findings were not published in peer-reviewed journals, thus rendering them of little value in his opinion.

Wim van Utrecht also presented objections, challenging Acheroy's conclusions regarding the light dimensions, movement, and direction. He demonstrated with a simple flashlight that similar light effects could be produced, questioning the uniqueness of the Petit-Rechain slide's characteristics. He argued that the movement of lights could appear independent of the object's movement, especially with long exposures.

The "Vague d'OVNI" and Skeptical Views

The Belgian UFO wave of 1989-1990 is discussed, with some skeptics, like Pierre Magain, attributing many sightings to exceptional atmospheric phenomena or misidentification of aircraft like the AWACS. Magain suggested that the lights in the Petit-Rechain photo might be confused with AWACS aircraft. The article counters that such explanations do not account for all observations.

Analysis by Professor André Marion

Professor André Marion, a nuclear physicist and digital imaging expert, examined the Petit-Rechain slide. He confirmed the previous findings and focused on the 'background noise' surrounding the triangular shape. His research, initially related to the Shroud of Turin, led him to discover something significant in the background, which he suggested might be compatible with Professor Meessen's propulsion theories. This discovery could indicate phenomena occurring around the UFO.

Wim van Utrecht: Further Objections

In 2004, Wim van Utrecht submitted further objections to Professor Acheroy's analysis. He questioned the significance of the relationship between light size and wavelength, suggesting that simple lamps could produce similar effects. He also challenged the interpretation of light movement, arguing that it could appear independent of the object's movement. Regarding the orientation of light 'cords,' he noted consistency, with exceptions possibly due to reflections.

The UFO Wave Would Be "Natural"

This section discusses the prevailing skeptical view that the Belgian UFO wave was largely due to natural atmospheric phenomena. Pierre Magain and the "Groupe des Dix" attributed most sightings to such causes, including radar echoes and misidentified AWACS aircraft. The article argues that these explanations are insufficient to cover all reported cases.

A Day of Study at ERM

In 1997, a study day was organized at the Royal Military School to bring together researchers who had examined the Petit-Rechain document. The meeting aimed to discuss its originality and explore further analysis. Participants included academics and representatives from SOBEPS. The photographer, PM, was also present and answered questions. Pierre Magain was invited but could not attend. The meeting concluded that the document could not be proven to be a trivial hoax, but no concrete actions followed.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently promotes a rational, scientific, and rigorous approach to ufology. It emphasizes the importance of detailed analysis, evidence-based research, and collaboration among researchers. The editorial stance is one of open inquiry, challenging simplistic explanations and advocating for a serious scientific study of UFO phenomena. There is a clear effort to counter skepticism by presenting detailed technical analyses and expert opinions, while also acknowledging the limitations and complexities of the subject matter. The magazine also highlights the challenges of international communication and the need for funding to support its research and publications.

Title: infospace
Issue: 27
Volume: 11
Issue Date: November 16, 2005
Publisher: infospace
Country: Belgium
Language: French
Cover Headline: Nouvelle analyse de la diapositive de Petit-Rechain (New analysis of the Petit-Rechain slide)

Analysis of the Petit-Rechain Slide

This issue of infospace features a comprehensive re-examination of the renowned Petit-Rechain UFO slide, a triangular object photographed in Belgium. The analysis is presented in several sections, detailing the technical processes and findings.

Initial Observations and Methodology

The issue begins with a discussion of the SeerSight report by Benoît Mussche, who analyzed a digitized version of the slide. Mussche details the technical aspects of the digitization process, including the use of an Epson Perfection 2480 Photo scanner and multiple scans to mitigate potential technical issues. He notes that the image is of a dark, triangular object against a dark blue background.

André Marion, in his section "Nouvelle analyse de la diapositive de Petit-Rechain," describes the initial visual observation of the slide. He notes that the frame is sharp and without double exposure, ruling out simple double or multiple exposure techniques. He also finds it difficult to attribute the image to a hoax using simple models or video manipulation, suggesting the object is likely material and unidentified.

Marion details the digitization process using a Canon scanner with a high optical resolution. Due to the image being mostly dark with low contrast, a technique of averaging multiple scans was employed to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. This process involved rotating the slide and averaging the results to reduce noise from the CCD structure and electronic measurements.

Numerical Treatment Results

The numerical treatments applied to the slide revealed several key characteristics:

• Shape and Structure: The object's contour is described as a nearly isosceles triangle (ABC), with a quadrilateral base (BCED). Four bright spots, referred to as "feux" (lights), are visible. Three are near the extremities (A, D, E), and one is near the middle of the height. The object's contour shows some blur, indicating relative movement between the object and the film during exposure. This suggests either object rotation or camera shake.
• Rotation: The observed blur is explained by a rotation of the object around an axis, estimated at 5 degrees. Simulations were performed to replicate this effect.
• Lights (Feux): The three outer lights exhibit complex colored structures and deformations not fully explained by global rotation. This implies independent movements of these lights relative to the main object. The lights are described as having complex structures, some resembling boomerangs or arcs.
• Halo and Lines of Force: Color treatments highlight a luminous halo around the object and luminous trails between the lights. Further analysis, particularly of saturation and frequency filtering, revealed preferred directions within the halo, suggesting a swirling or vortex-like process. These "lines of force" are seen as strong arguments against a simple hoax, as creating such a complex phenomenon would be difficult.

Interpretation and Theories

Marc Acheroy, in his commentary, states that previous attempts to prove the Petit-Rechain slide was a fake have not succeeded. He notes that simulations by WVU did not show the same wavelength-dependent light scattering as observed in the original slide, suggesting a difference. He also comments on the figures, suggesting that Figure 2 is reconstructible, but Figure 3 might be a fake based on film analysis. However, he reiterates that his report could not prove it was a fake.

Acheroy emphasizes the importance of context in analyzing such evidence, comparing it to demining operations where understanding the history and socio-economic environment is crucial. He stresses that the credibility of the investigating organization (SOBEPS) is vital.

Further Analysis and Hypotheses

André Marion's analysis delves deeper into the nature of the lights. He suggests that the "feux" might be related to a propulsion system, possibly magnetoplasmadynamic (MPD) propulsion, as theorized by Professor Auguste Meessen. The observed "lines of force" are consistent with this idea.

Marion also discusses the possibility of a hoax, particularly concerning the "feu avant" (front light), which shows characteristics that could be interpreted as painted details. He notes that the object's rotation is more evident than the movement of the lights themselves.

He explores the idea that the lights are not simple "headlights" but rather part of a propulsion system, possibly expelling plasma or ionized gas. The boomerang-like structures observed in the lights are analyzed in detail, with Marion suggesting they could be related to the object's rotation or a complex propulsion mechanism.

Comparison with Other Images and Mock-ups

The issue includes comparisons with other UFO photographs and mock-ups. The mock-up by M. Lecocq is dismissed as not showing relevant details. Pierre Magain's reconstruction is considered more inspired but lacks the detailed filament structures seen in the Petit-Rechain slide.

Post-Scriptum

A post-scriptum mentions two other photographs from an American website that are strikingly similar to the Petit-Rechain slide. These photos, allegedly taken by J.S. Henrardi in Belgium in 1990, were reportedly published in 2003. The authors express ignorance about this diffusion and have not received a response from the website administrators.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently focuses on detailed, scientific analysis of UFO evidence, particularly photographic evidence. The editorial stance appears to be one of open-minded inquiry, seeking to apply rigorous scientific methods to unexplained phenomena. There is a clear emphasis on methodology, digital image processing, and comparing findings with established scientific principles. While acknowledging the possibility of hoaxes, the magazine also explores unconventional theories, such as advanced propulsion systems, when supported by detailed analysis of the evidence. The Petit-Rechain case serves as a prime example of this approach, with multiple experts contributing to its ongoing investigation.

This issue of inforspace (Issue 110, June 2005) focuses on the complex history and evolution of French government agencies tasked with studying unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), alongside detailed investigations into specific cases. The magazine features a prominent interview with Claude Poher, founder of GEPAN, and discussions surrounding the fate of SEPRA and the creation of GEIPAN. It also includes a scientific analysis of Mexican radar and infrared observations and explores the challenges and methodologies of UAP research.

Analysis of Mexican Observations

Auguste Meessen, a physicist and Professor Emeritus, contributes an article titled "Compléments de l'étude des observations mexicaines." He revisits his previous article on Mexican Air Force radar and infrared observations from 2004. Meessen addresses feedback from informed individuals, including Bruce Maccabee and Claude Poher. He elaborates on Claude Poher's suggestion that radar detected ground-based targets, possibly oil well flares. Meessen discusses the radar's detection of apparent ground targets moving at speeds comparable to the aircraft, suggesting this could be due to multiple reflections from ground reflectors or the use of a Kalman filter in military radar systems to selectively track targets. He also examines the orientation of the FLIR camera, concluding that a slight forward tilt is the most plausible explanation for the observed data, without altering the interpretation of the infrared signatures as torchères.

Meessen also touches upon the concept of a 'transparent' object model, referencing a German pilot's observation of an optically invisible radar target. He acknowledges that while this specific model may not be necessary for the Mexican case, it remains a potential explanation for other unexplained sightings.

The Evolution of French UAP Investigation: GEPAN, SEPRA, and GEIPAN

Several articles detail the institutional history of UAP study within the French space agency, CNES.

GEPAN to SEPRA

An article traces the origins of GEPAN (Groupe d'Étude des Phénomènes Aériens Non identifiés), founded at CNES in 1977 under Claude Poher. GEPAN conducted statistical studies and published reports, concluding that a significant percentage of cases remained unidentified. Following Poher's departure, Jean-Jacques Velasco took over, leading to a period of increased activity. However, tensions and a shift in focus led to GEPAN being placed 'in dormancy' and eventually transformed into SEPRA (Service d'Expertise des Phénomènes de Rentrée Atmosphérique) in 1988. SEPRA's mission was narrowed, and its public-facing activities diminished.

The Closure and Reorganization of SEPRA

Arnaud Benedetti, Director of Communication at CNES, is interviewed by Grégory Gutierez regarding the status of SEPRA. Benedetti clarifies that SEPRA, as a distinct service, no longer officially exists within the CNES's 2004 organizational structure. Jean-Jacques Velasco is now a 'mission manager' tasked with monitoring rare aerospace phenomena. Benedetti emphasizes that CNES's primary mission is space policy and that individual opinions expressed by staff, like Velasco's views on extraterrestrial origins, do not represent the agency's official stance.

The Emergence of GEIPAN

The issue discusses the creation of GEIPAN (Groupe d'Etude et d'Information sur les Phénomènes Aériens Non identifiés) in early 2004, following a reorganization. GEIPAN aims to continue the work of collecting, analyzing, and archiving UAP testimonies. A key development is the establishment of a Steering Committee composed of representatives from various state organizations and scientists. Jacques Patenet, head of GEIPAN, explains that the new structure aims for greater transparency and scientific rigor. He highlights the importance of studying Phenomena Aériens Non-identifiés (PAN) for scientific, sociological, and national security reasons. Patenet also addresses the potential public access to archives, stating that efforts are underway to make them available online, though the process will be lengthy.

Claude Poher's Perspective

In an interview with Grégory Gutierez, Claude Poher, the founder of GEPAN, expresses his critical views on the scientific community's general dismissal of the UFO subject, famously stating, "Scientists couldn't care less about it." He argues that progress in UAP research relies on dedicated individuals rather than mainstream scientific acceptance. Poher also discusses the challenges of making UAP archives public, citing legal and ethical considerations, particularly regarding witness anonymity and classified information.

The SOBEPS Reports

The magazine also promotes two comprehensive books published by SOBEPS (Service d'Observation des Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Belges) on the Belgian UFO wave of 1989-1991: "VAGUE D'OVNI SUR LA BELGIQUE: 1. UN DOSSIER EXCEPTIONNEL" and "VAGUE D'OVNI SUR LA BELGIQUE 2. UNE ENIGME NON RESOLUE." These books are described as detailed investigations, including historical accounts, media coverage, photographic and radar analysis, and scientific commentary.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue consistently emphasizes the need for a rigorous, scientific approach to UAP phenomena, while acknowledging the institutional and societal barriers to such research. There is a recurring theme of government agencies grappling with the public perception and scientific validity of UAP studies. The editorial stance appears to favor transparency and continued investigation, albeit within strict scientific and legal frameworks. The magazine highlights the efforts of dedicated researchers and organizations like SOBEPS in pushing the boundaries of knowledge in this field, often in contrast to the perceived indifference of the broader scientific establishment.

Title: Inforespace (implied by the text describing the review published by SOBEPS)
Date: Not specified, but references the Belgian wave of 1989-91, suggesting a publication date after this period.
Character: This document is a page from a publication by SOBEPS, a non-profit association focused on the rational study of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP).

SOBEPS: Mission and Operations

The SOBEPS is presented as a non-profit association with the primary objective of observing and rationally studying unidentified aerial phenomena and associated problems. It emphasizes its operation on a completely voluntary basis, covering investigations into testimonies and the unbiased dissemination of collected information. This dissemination occurs through a semi-annual review, referred to as Inforespace, as well as through conferences and debates.

The editorial team of Inforespace relies on the goodwill and free time of volunteer collaborators. Consequently, the publication does not have a commercial character, and fixed publication dates cannot be guaranteed, with potential delays being susceptible to occur.

Member Collaboration and Contributions

The association actively solicits the collaboration of its members. Members are invited to share any information related to subjects covered in the review. Furthermore, they are encouraged to participate in promoting the society and, according to their means, to become active members by directly contributing to various tasks. These tasks include translation, research, investigations, secretarial work, and coding.

Members are also urged to promptly report any unusual aerial phenomena they might observe or become aware of through others.

Secretariat and Library Access

The premises of SOBEPS are accessible to members, but strictly by appointment. Visits are possible on Saturdays between 2:00 PM and 6:00 PM. During these visits, members can consult the association's complete documentation, which includes books and magazines.

A reminder is given that the phone number 02/524.28.48 is specifically reserved for testimonies and operates with a 24-hour automatic answering machine.

Available Slide Series

The collection of slides belonging to SOBEPS is currently exhausted. However, the association can still offer some exceptional series, each accompanied by commentary regarding the origin of the documents.

• Color Slide Series: Three series, each containing 12 slides, are available. A set of 12 slides costs €15 (equivalent to 600 Belgian Francs or 100 French Francs). The price for all three series is €42 (equivalent to 1700 Belgian Francs or 280 French Francs).
• Belgian Wave Series: Two series of 12 slides each, focusing on the Belgian wave of 1989-91, are offered. These two sets, comprising 24 inseparable documents, are priced at €18.5 (equivalent to 750 Belgian Francs or 120 French Francs).

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this document revolve around the operational aspects of a UAP research organization, emphasizing voluntary collaboration, information gathering, and the dissemination of findings. The editorial stance is one of serious, rational inquiry into UAP, encouraging public participation and the sharing of data. The focus is on building a comprehensive archive of testimonies and related materials, with a particular mention of the historical 'Belgian wave' as a subject of interest for their slide collection.