Inforespace - No 51 - 1980

Magazine Overview

Title: inforespace
Issue: 51
Volume: 9
Date: May 1980
Publisher: SOBEPS asbl
Country: Belgium
Language: French

This issue of "inforespace" is dedicated to a critical examination of the "Airship wave" that occurred in the United States between 1896 and 1897. The magazine adopts a skeptical yet analytical approach, questioning the reliability of journalistic reports and exploring various explanations for the sightings, including hoaxes, misidentifications, and early aeronautical experiments.

Requiem pour une vague (Requiem for a Wave)

The lead article, "Requiem pour une vague," begins by characterizing UFO phenomena as a collection of "incoherent manifestations." It then focuses on the 1896-1897 American wave, which it describes as posing more problems than solutions for ufologists. The author notes that this wave is often used to support various theories, such as the antiquity of UFOs, the concept of OVNI 'mimicry' reflecting mental structures, or purely socio-psychological explanations. The article questions whether these sightings represented an external intelligence or were a product of collective myth-making fueled by the era's fascination with aerial conquest.

The article emphasizes the importance of placing the wave within its exact historical context. It highlights that knowledge of the wave primarily comes from press clippings, and ufologists are cautioned about the unreliability of journalistic accounts, citing the 1954 French wave as an example of discrepancies between reality and media reporting. The author points out the existence of "canards" (hoaxes) within the press, such as a report of a 3-meter-tall being emerging from a landed Airship near Reynolds, Michigan, which was later adapted and regionalized by another newspaper.

It is argued that while individual cases might be discredited due to journalistic fabrication, this does not invalidate the entire phenomenon. The article also acknowledges that a significant portion of the wave likely involved non-UFO phenomena, such as meteorological and astronomical events (like Venus) that were not recognized at the time. The author suggests that more than half of reported "nocturnal lights" sightings correspond to such natural phenomena.

The Aurora, Texas Incident

The 1897 Aurora, Texas incident is presented as a key case. On April 17, 1897, an Airship reportedly crashed into Judge Proctor's windmill. The pilot was described as having a "non-terrestrial" appearance, and a logbook with hieroglyphics was found. Investigations by American ufologists aimed to find wreckage or the pilot's remains. However, an interview with a local resident, Lowry, revealed that the story was fabricated by E.E. Haydon to attract attention to the declining town. Evidence supporting this fabrication includes the absence of a windmill on Proctor's property and no record of an anonymous grave in the local cemetery.

The Hamilton Hoax

Another significant case discussed is the hoax orchestrated by farmer Alexander Hamilton. This incident, though not a real event, is considered highly significant. The article also notes that confusion with natural phenomena is a common factor in UFO reports.

Historical Context: Early Aeronautics

To understand the context, the article provides a historical overview of aeronautics, particularly dirigibles. It mentions the "locomotive aérostatique" project by the Frenchman Pétin in 1850-1851, which was a large, steam-powered airship. Despite its innovative design, Pétin faced numerous setbacks and accidents, including a lightning strike that destroyed his airship. The author uses Pétin's project to illustrate that by 1851, the American public was already aware of the existence and appearance of such fantastic machines, making it plausible for them to interpret sightings through this lens.

The article then discusses the period between 1850 and 1890, during which numerous balloons, including attempts at transatlantic voyages, traversed the US skies. It highlights the efforts of aeronauts like John Wise and Thaddéus Lowe. The author argues that the sky was not empty of human-made flying objects, making the interpretation of sightings as extraterrestrial premature.

The "Airship" as Described

The article details the descriptions of the "Airship" from the 1896-1897 wave. It was often described as a "gigantic" spindle-shaped fuselage, 30 to 50 meters long, moving horizontally. It typically had a cabin or gondola underneath, sometimes equipped with propellers resembling turbines, large lateral wings, and occasionally searchlights or ropes with anchors. The author emphasizes that while these were not extraordinary for the time, the key factor was the absence of known dirigibles operating in the American skies, which led many to consider them "extraterrestrial."

The California Sightings

The wave reportedly began in California in 1896. On November 22, 1896, an Airship was observed over Oakland, described as a 45-meter-long craft with four brilliant rotors. The next day, it was seen over St. Mary's College, and the "San Francisco Call" published a drawing of it. The article links these sightings to earlier aeronautical projects, such as Frederick Marriott's "AVITOR" steam dirigible from 1869, and a project by A. Pennington. It suggests that journalistic depictions, like the one in the "San Francisco Call," may have already begun to shape the public's perception of the Airship, potentially influencing witness accounts.

Case Gilson's sighting on November 28, 1896, in Oakland, described an object resembling a long cigar with a "fish tail" (double rudder) and fast-rotating propellers. Other observations mentioned "sails" or "veils" hanging below the Airship, which the author connects to a rigid-frame dirigible design by H. Vanaise from 1863. Some witnesses reported multiple pairs of large wings, and in Beaumont, Texas, on April 19, 1897, J.R. Ligon and his son saw an Airship with four giant wings, two on each side, propelled by four giant wings.

The "Metallic Hull" Observation

An observation from the "Daily News of Denison" on January 25, 1878, is presented as an example of how ufologists might misinterpret phenomena. Farmer John Martin reported seeing a dark, fast-moving object. The article argues that given the prevalence of balloons at the time, it was likely a balloon seen from below, appearing round like a "saucer."

Canards are Instructive

The article reiterates that hoaxes are instructive. The Alexander Hamilton case from Le Roy, Kansas, is detailed. Hamilton, a member of a "club of liars," claimed to have seen a massive Airship, about 100 meters long, land. He described a cabin made of transparent panels, three lights (one like a projector), and six strange occupants. The author implies this was a fabrication designed to capitalize on the public's fascination with the Airship phenomenon.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical analysis of UFO reports, particularly historical ones. The magazine's stance is one of careful investigation, emphasizing the need to consider journalistic bias, the possibility of hoaxes, and the misinterpretation of natural or conventional phenomena. It advocates for a grounded approach to ufology, urging readers to be wary of sensationalism and to seek verifiable evidence. The historical context of early aviation and the public's awareness of such technologies are presented as crucial factors in understanding past sightings. The issue promotes a rational and evidence-based approach to the study of unexplained aerial phenomena.

This issue of Flying Saucer Review focuses on the 'Airship' sightings that occurred in the United States during 1896 and 1897. The central thesis is that these phenomena were not extraterrestrial in origin but rather represented advanced, albeit largely forgotten, terrestrial aeronautical achievements.

The "Airship" Phenomenon of 1896-1897

The article begins by recounting the sensationalized report from Le Roy, New York, about a mysterious aerial object with a large turbine. It notes how the vocabulary used by witnesses – 'propeller,' 'turbine,' 'aeroplane' – was part of the active lexicon of the time, suggesting a grounding in contemporary understanding.

A Mundane Mechanism?

The text explores the technical aspects of these observed craft. It highlights the precise descriptions provided by witnesses, which allowed for the identification of potential models. One such reference is to Campbell's dirigible, which made a dramatic ascent in New York on July 10, 1889. Campbell's airship was described as egg-shaped, about 48 meters long, made of Chinese silk, and equipped with vertical and horizontal propellers, as well as a rudder.

Powering the Airships

The issue delves into the energy sources powering these airships. On April 1, 1897, in Everest, Kansas, witnesses observed an airship with a canoe-shaped gondola. They noted that the lights became brighter when the object slowed down and dimmer when it accelerated, suggesting an electrical power source. On April 22, 1897, in Josserand, Texas, a witness named Frank Nichols was told by the crew that the airship was propelled by 'highly condensed electricity.' The article draws a parallel to Jules Verne's 'Robur the Conqueror' and mentions early experiments with electric propulsion systems by Tissandier and Krebs/Renard in the 1880s.

Other power sources discussed include steam engines, as exemplified by H. Giffard's 1852 airship, and compressed air. A notable case from April 23, 1897, near Texarkans, Texas, involved an aluminum craft observed by Judge L.A. Byrne, which was reportedly powered by compressed air. The article references Victor Tatin's 1879 compressed air monoplane experiments and the general resemblance of some described airships to Tatin's 'aeroplane.' Other potential power sources mentioned are steam engines (Langley), gas engines (Haenlein), air-jet reactors (Russell Thayer), and explosion engines adapted for dirigibles (Schwartz).

Notable Sightings and Descriptions

Shelby, Michigan (April 15, 1897)

Residents of Shelby reported seeing a large balloon with a gondola illuminated by colored lights and emitting smoke.

Texarkans, Texas (April 23, 1897)

Judge L.A. Byrne observed a singular craft on the ground, described as being made of aluminum and powered by compressed air. Three individuals resembling Japanese spoke in an unknown language.

Sioux City, Iowa (circa March 26, 1897)

Robert Hibbard claimed to have been grabbed by an anchor suspended from an aerial vessel and dragged before his clothes gave way, freeing him.

Merkel, Texas (April 26, 1897)

An anchor hanging from an airship was reported to have become caught in a railway track and was later recovered by local blacksmiths.

Waxachie, Texas (April 17, 1897)

Judge Lowe and his friend Beatty observed a bizarre machine in the woods, accompanied by five men who claimed to be from the North Pole.

Captain Hooton's Observation (April 20, 1897)

One of the most detailed accounts comes from Captain James Hooton, who observed an airship near Homan, Arkansas. He described an object emitting a sound similar to a locomotive's air pump. The craft was made of aluminum, with a hull divided into two sections tapering to a point at the front. It had six large, concave metal wheels on the sides. The crew claimed to use 'aeroplanes and compressed air.' The airship ascended using jets of air or steam from tubes near the wheels, which spun rapidly. Hooton noted the absence of any visible means of propulsion like propellers or engines, and the craft's rapid ascent.

Technical Analysis of Hooton's Description

The article analyzes Hooton's description, comparing the airship's features to known aeronautical designs of the late 19th century. The 'aeroplanes' mentioned were likely control surfaces (like elevators or rudders) rather than wings. The description of the wheels with concave blades is linked to variable-geometry paddle wheels, a concept explored in aeronautics at the time. The jets of air or steam were interpreted as exhaust from a propulsion system, likely air, given Hooton's expertise as a locomotive driver and the crew's mention of compressed air.

Historical Context and Counterarguments

Precursors and Similar Designs

The author emphasizes that many elements described in the airship sightings had historical precedents. Examples include C.P. Fest's hot air jet dirigible (1884) and Russell Thayer's compressed air jet dirigible (1884-1886). S. Bausset's 1887 ventilation reactor and D.J. Pennington's 1887 steerable jet ventilator are also cited as evidence of the prevalence of compressed air technology in aerial navigation.

The Paddle Wheel Controversy

The article addresses the seemingly paradoxical paddle wheels described by Hooton. It explains that variable-geometry blades could have allowed for propulsion by adjusting the angle of the blades to interact effectively with the air. Historical examples of similar concepts, like those used by Bredin in 1784 and Pichou's 'auto-aérienne' (1872-1912), are mentioned.

The 'Airship' as a Synthesis of Technology

The author concludes that the observed airships were not incoherent or impossible designs but rather sophisticated syntheses of the best aeronautical solutions developed before 1897. They were a testament to the ingenuity of inventors of the era.

Addressing Ufological Objections

The 'Incomprehensible' Argument

A key point is made against the ufological tendency to dismiss phenomena that don't fit preconceived notions. The article argues that the 1897 airships, unlike modern UFOs, did not exhibit characteristics that were fundamentally incomprehensible or beyond the technological capabilities of the time. The lack of reports of vegetation alteration or sleep disturbances in witnesses is cited as evidence against truly anomalous events.

The 'Too Many Sightings' Argument

Regarding the sheer number of sightings, the article suggests that a significant portion of reports from any era are unreliable (estimating 80% for UFO reports). Applying this reduction to the 1897 airship wave leaves a manageable number of cases, potentially explainable by a few experimental dirigibles operating concurrently.

The 'Superior Performance' Argument

The article counters the idea that the airships performed impossibly well for the era. It cites examples of high-speed balloon flights from the 19th century, such as John Wise's 1859 flight covering 1292 km in 20h40 (averaging over 60 km/h) and Lowe's 1861 flight covering a similar distance at an average of nearly 90 km/h. These speeds, achieved by simple balloons caught in strong winds, suggest that experimental dirigibles could also achieve impressive speeds.

The 'Disappearance' Argument

One of the most significant objections is: if these advanced airships were built, why did they disappear from history? The article posits that the inventors of the era often worked in isolation, keeping their projects secret. The disappearance of an inventor with their apparatus would naturally lead to the end of their project's visibility. Several tragic fates of aeronauts and their machines are recounted, including Petin's near-drowning and his machine being destroyed by lightning, La Mountain and Haddock's near-fatal expedition, John Wise's death in Lake Michigan, and Campbell's dirigible being swept over the Atlantic.

Fragility and Mechanical Issues

The article also touches upon the perceived fragility and mechanical issues of some airships. Reports of airships needing repairs on the ground (the Hooton case) and instances of explosions and fires (e.g., Battle Creek and Kalamazoo, Michigan) are mentioned. These incidents, while dramatic, are presented as indicative of the experimental and sometimes precarious nature of early aeronautical technology rather than evidence of alien craft.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout the issue is the re-contextualization of historical 'UFO' sightings within the framework of contemporary technological development. The editorial stance is strongly in favor of a rational, historical explanation for the 1896-1897 airship wave, attributing the sightings to advanced but terrestrial aeronautical inventions. The author criticizes ufologists for what is perceived as ignorance of aeronautical history and a tendency to overlook plausible explanations in favor of extraterrestrial hypotheses. The issue aims to demonstrate that the 'Airship' era was a period of significant, albeit often overlooked, innovation in aviation, and that the observed phenomena were a product of human ingenuity rather than alien visitation.

This issue of INFORESPACE, a French ufology publication, delves into various UFO-related phenomena, critically analyzing different interpretations and historical cases. The content spans from late 19th-century airship sightings to mid-20th-century UFO waves and the more complex UMMO affair.

The 1897 Airship Wave

The issue begins by recounting the 1897 airship sightings, particularly focusing on an incident where a large, flaming object crashed, leaving behind a meter-diameter aluminum propeller. Witnesses described explosions and flames, leading to the conclusion that it was an experimental, human-made dirigible experiencing severe problems. A more significant event detailed is the observation of an Airship by workers in Grand Rapids, Michigan, during the night of April 16-17, 1897. A distress message found later indicated the Airship was lost and unable to be directed, requesting that people be informed of their location over Michigan. The message was signed by Arthur B. Coats, C. C. Harris, and C.W. Rich.

Critique of Monnerie's Socio-Psychological Model

A substantial portion of the magazine is dedicated to critiquing the socio-psychological model proposed by ufologist Michel Monnerie. The authors argue that while Monnerie's model is effective for explaining explicable phenomena, it becomes absurd when applied universally, particularly to the 1896/1897 wave. They contend that Monnerie's attempt to explain this wave solely through socio-psychology is flawed, as the wave was not merely a myth but also contained elements of reality. The critique highlights Monnerie's tendency to force facts to fit his theory, even suggesting that the Airship was 'just a myth' to maintain his model's validity. The authors emphasize that reality should take precedence over theories and that Monnerie's logic is fallacious, leading to false conclusions.

The Diges Case (1954)

The article presents the case of Diges, in the Yonne region of France, from September 24, 1954, as an example of how observations can be distorted. A woman, Mme Geoffroy, reported seeing a 'flying saucer' with landing gear in a field, which she described as a boat-shaped object of dull grey color. This observation occurred during a period of widespread UFO sightings. However, an investigation by Charles Garreau revealed that the object was an American helicopter that had landed briefly in a clearing to allow a pilot to relieve himself. The author uses this case to illustrate how a lack of familiarity with conventional aircraft and the prevailing cultural narrative of flying saucers can lead to misinterpretations, even when details like landing gear (skids) are accurately observed.

Early UFO Investigations and Key Figures

The magazine traces the history of UFO investigations, starting with Kenneth Arnold's 1947 sighting of 'flying saucers' near Mount Rainier, which coined the term. It mentions the creation of the G.E.P.A.N. (Group for the Study of Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena) within the French National Centre for Space Studies (C.N.E.S.) in 1977. The article highlights the importance of credible witnesses, like Arnold, and discusses the early involvement of the U.S. Air Force in investigating UFOs, leading to projects like 'Sign' in 1948, which considered both secret weapons and extraterrestrial hypotheses.

The UMMO Affair

The UMMO affair, which began around 1967, is presented as a significant and complex case. It involves numerous individuals, primarily in Madrid, who received detailed, typewritten and photocopied documents allegedly dictated by extraterrestrials from a planet called UMMO. The sheer volume of information, spanning astrophysics, cosmology, quantum mechanics, and even predictions about geopolitical events like the Yom Kippur War, suggests a sophisticated operation. The article notes the extensive technical and scientific data provided, including details about 'astranefs transdimensionnels lenticulaires' (lenticular transdimensional starships). The authors criticize the secrecy maintained by the 'Collège Invisible' (Invisible College), a network of researchers involved in the UMMO case, arguing that it hinders public access to information.

Scientific and Psychological Approaches to UFOs

The issue discusses the shift in ufological research towards psychological and sociological explanations, partly due to the inaccessibility of physical evidence like crashed UFOs or alien bodies. It acknowledges the role of parapsychology and the potential for quantum mechanics to provide a framework for understanding paranormal phenomena. The article also mentions a 1976 theoretical explanation for UFO propulsion in the atmosphere by a physicist, published in 'Science et Vie'.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue include the critical examination of UFO explanations, particularly the limitations of purely socio-psychological models. The magazine advocates for a rigorous, scientific approach, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between myth and reality while acknowledging that the two can be intertwined. The editorial stance appears to be one of open-minded skepticism, encouraging thorough investigation and discouraging hasty conclusions, whether from ufologists or anti-ufologists. There's a clear emphasis on the need for evidence-based research and a critique of theories that prioritize dogma over empirical data. The publication also highlights the historical development of ufology and the challenges faced by researchers in gaining acceptance and access to information.

Philatelic Event

A brief note mentions a philatelic event: the island of Grenada issued a series of three postage stamps and a special block-feuillet to promote UFO research, marking the first time a state has done so.

This issue of "OVNI, Mythe ou Réalité" (UFO, Myth or Reality), published by SOBEPS, features articles discussing a significant UAP incident in Iran in 1976, media coverage, and a debate among ufologists concerning the credibility of certain researchers.

The 1976 Iran UAP Incident

The issue details a perplexing UAP encounter that occurred on September 19, 1976, in Iran. The event began with multiple civilian reports of a bright light in the sky near Méhrebad airbase. The base officer, Major General Yousefi, also observed a brilliant object resembling a bright star. Radar controls at Babolsar and Shahrokhni proved negative, showing no echo. Despite this, Yousefi ordered a Phantom F4 fighter jet to intercept the object. However, the pilot experienced a radio communication blackout and had to return to base. A second F4 was dispatched, and its pilot, Lieutenant Jafari, attempted to approach the UAP. Suddenly, the object appeared to attack the aircraft. Jafari attempted to fire an AIM 9 Sidewinder missile, but the armament control panel malfunctioned, preventing the missile from being launched. Simultaneously, all radio communications ceased.

The incident generated significant attention in the Iranian press. Journalists reported based on Lieutenant Jafari's statements and recordings of air-to-ground conversations. Curiously, these recordings did not mention the radio failures. Military experts from the US Embassy in Tehran had the recordings translated and sent to Washington, as the Iranians appeared bewildered.

The affair subsequently took on extraordinary dimensions in the US media. The "National Enquirer" published a definitive account on January 31, 1977, based on its experts' report, even awarding a $5000 prize to be shared among the pilots, General Yousefi, and a navigator, facilitated by the Iranian ambassador to Washington. This was presented as the reward for the most scientifically valuable UFO case of 1976.

Journalist Philip J. Klass, an aviation specialist, is mentioned for his practice of re-investigating sensational UFO cases reported by the "National Enquirer" to uncover details not publicly disclosed by UFO proponents.

Ufology Debate: Hynek and Michel

A significant portion of the magazine addresses a controversy stemming from an anonymous letter signed "T. Riplixe." This letter insinuated that prominent figures in ufology were misleading the public by presenting apparent contradictions in their statements. Specifically, it questioned the claims made by Aimé Michel in his book "Mystérieux Objets Célestes" regarding J. Allen Hynek's alleged interactions with Marius Dewilde, the witness from the Quaroubles case.

Pierre Guérin, who was also implicated by these anonymous accusations, provides a clarification. He attests that Hynek and astronomer Gérard de Vaucouleurs did indeed visit Paris in 1959 and spent two days at Aimé Michel's home in Vanves, in Guérin's presence. Their purpose was to verify the existence of press clippings that Michel had used for his book and to investigate "orthoteny." Guérin states that Hynek was a consultant for the Air Force on UFOs at the time, and his trip was professionally related to these activities. De Vaucouleurs was interested in "orthoteny" and had statistical objections to it.

Guérin asserts that this was Hynek's only trip to France and that he merely noted the existence of press clippings, without conducting any field investigations or collecting testimony from Marius Dewilde. Guérin suggests that Aimé Michel may have made a minor error regarding the date of Hynek's visit (stating 1953 instead of 1959), which could be a simple transcription error or a translation issue. He defends Michel's objectivity and Hynek's right to privacy regarding the specific reasons for his trip.

Other Mentions

The issue also briefly mentions a rapid passage of a meteor over Morocco and the eastern Atlantic Ocean. A future event is announced: a conference-debate titled "OVNI, Mythe ou Réalité" by Michel Bougard, President of SOBEPS, to be held on September 26 at 8 PM at the Maison de la Forêt de Bon-Secours in Péruwelz.

Object Characteristics and Explanations

Regarding the Iran incident, the article notes that Jupiter was at its maximum magnitude in the Tehran sky on the night of the incident. It suggests that Iranian pilots lacked the capacity and experience for night interception missions. Investigators reportedly lacked crucial information such as the direction of the light and the flight path of the aircraft. The perceived receding of the object was attributed to the great distance involved. Experts, despite lacking precise data, suggested that the radio communication failure was caused by the light's presence.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine appears to adopt a critical yet open-minded stance towards UAP phenomena. It presents detailed accounts of specific incidents, such as the 1976 Iran case, while also scrutinizing media reports and ufological claims. The debate surrounding Hynek and Michel highlights the internal discussions and controversies within the ufology community. The editorial stance seems to favor rigorous investigation and fact-checking, as evidenced by the detailed clarification provided by Pierre Guérin and the mention of Philip J. Klass's investigative approach.