Inforespace - No 58 - 1981

Magazine Overview

Title: Inforespace
Issue: n° 58
Date: November 1981, 10th year
Type: Quarterly review
Publisher: SOBEPS (Société Belge d'Etude des Phénomènes Spatiaux)
Language: French

Editorial: The Human Factor and UFO Belief

The editorial discusses two recent opinion polls in France concerning UFOs. The first, conducted by IFOP-ETMAR in spring 1980, surveyed over 1100 people aged 15 and above. It found that 35.0% of French people "believe" in UFOs, equating to approximately 13.44 million individuals. The belief was found to be stronger among younger individuals (15-19 years old) and less so among those over 65. Professions varied among believers, with a significant percentage of workers, employees, middle managers, and senior executives.

The second survey, conducted by SOFRES in 1981 with 2350 participants aged 15 and over, confirmed these findings, with 31% believing in UFO "passages." This survey noted a higher belief among men, middle managers, and residents of the Mediterranean region. The editorial notes the convergence of these figures, suggesting around 13 million French people "believe" in UFOs.

The author expresses disappointment with the framing of the question as "Do you believe in flying saucers?" arguing that it reduces the issue to a matter of a priori belief rather than objective investigation. The editorial emphasizes that the focus should be on the objective existence of a phenomenon and the need for attentive study, not mere belief. It criticizes sociologists for framing the question in a way that implies a subjective choice, akin to preferring chocolate ice cream or laundry detergent.

The editorial contrasts the French situation with that in the United States, referencing an upcoming article by sociologist Ron Westrum. It acknowledges the growing interest in ufology among French sociologists and the potential for quality research, but notes that sociologists have largely neglected the UFO field. The author reaffirms the conviction in the existence of one or more phenomena of a particularly original character, despite the complexities, controversies, and commercialization surrounding the subject.

It also touches upon the "paranoia" within ufology, mentioning that some are ready to believe that organizations like the "Union Rationaliste" are plotting to discredit ufology. The editorial calls for more lucidity, drawing a parallel to scientific conflicts where harsh disputes and "low blows" are not uncommon.

Subscription Renewal and SOBEPS Information

Pages 2 and 6 provide details on subscription renewals for 1982. The magazine, issue n° 58, marks the end of the current subscription year. Subscribers are urged to renew their membership for 1982 to receive four issues of approximately 50 pages each, plus a special issue. Subscription rates are listed for Belgium, France, and other countries, with different rates for ordinary members, students, and "supporters." Payments can be made via CCP (postal account) or bank transfer to SOBEPS in Brussels. International postal money orders or bank transfers are accepted for France and Canada.

The SOBEPS is described as a non-profit association dedicated to the rational observation and study of unidentified aerial phenomena. Its activities include investigations, dissemination of information through its quarterly review, and conferences. The association relies on volunteer collaborators and acknowledges that publication dates may vary due to the voluntary nature of its work. Members are encouraged to contribute information and actively participate in the society's work. They are also asked to report any unusual aerial phenomena they observe.

A book, "Des Soucoupes Volantes aux OVNI" by Michel Bougard, is available for purchase through SOBEPS.

Table of Contents (Sommaire)

The table of contents on page 3 lists the following articles:

• Editorial
• Renouvellement des cotisations (Subscription Renewal)
• Le facteur humain dans les observations d'OVNI (The Human Factor in UFO Observations)
• Le mystère de Roswell (The Roswell Mystery)
• La duplicité de l'Armée de l'Air américaine (The Duplicity of the American Air Force)
• Nouvelles internationales (International News)
• Le deuxième Forum de la Recherche Parallèle (The Second Parallel Research Forum)
• Le dossier photos d'Inforespace (The Inforespace Photo Dossier)
• Le mythe Adamski (The Adamski Myth)
• Etude de différents aspects du phénomène OVNI (4) (Study of Different Aspects of the UFO Phenomenon (4))
• On nous écrit... (Letters to the Editor)

The editorial states that signed articles represent the author's responsibility.

Article: The Human Factor in UFO Observations

This article, by an unnamed author, delves into the sociological aspects of UFO observations. It argues that when analyzing strange phenomena like UFOs, the "human factor" must always be considered. This involves evaluating not only the witnesses but also the process of storytelling, the media through which information is disseminated, and the scientific community's criteria for accepting or rejecting such accounts.

The Witness: The article examines who sees UFOs. Based on US Gallup polls from 1966, 1968, 1973, and 1978, it suggests that people who see UFOs are generally similar to those who don't, with age being a notable difference: younger individuals were more likely to report sightings. This trend was also observed in a study of industry researchers and engineers. The author posits that a positive attitude towards UFOs might lead individuals to be more likely to label strange aerial events as UFOs, rather than necessarily implying hallucinations.

Regarding "close encounters," the article notes that studies are insufficient and contradictory, but suggests these encounters occur more frequently in rural areas. An intriguing factor highlighted is a study of astronomers' observations, which found that sightings were proportional to the amount of time spent observing professionally. Non-observers saw fewer UFOs than professional night observers, and amateur observers saw five times more than non-observers.

Observation: The article questions what people mean when they report seeing a UFO, citing that in 90% of cases, the reported object is something ordinary. It emphasizes that the remaining 10% of unexplained phenomena are of interest. The author discusses how common objects like stars, planets, meteors, and birds can be mistaken for UFOs, and that even experienced observers can be fooled by optical illusions caused by aircraft. The article acknowledges that some skeptics attribute all UFO reports to errors or hoaxes but stresses the importance of isolating genuinely unexplained observations.

It presents data from a study of 186 observations and 179 witnesses, many of whom had technical backgrounds. The study suggests that observations are made with more precision during the day than at night, and when objects are closer. However, the majority of reported observations occur in relative darkness, with only about a quarter during daylight. Furthermore, most objects are perceived as distant, with only 17% reported within 500 meters and 8% within 100 meters. This means the average UFO phenomenon is observed at a distance and in low light conditions.

Combining these factors, only 4% of the sample (six cases) involved observations within 500 meters and in broad daylight. The article notes that such close, daytime sightings pose serious problems for analysis. It also mentions that while many "close encounters" happen late in the evening, the focus should be on the unusual nature of the phenomena themselves.

Analysis of Unusual Sightings: The article discusses objects that appear to be manufactured and exhibit intelligent control. It also mentions accounts of "humanoids" emerging from these objects, sometimes abducting and temporarily holding people for strange treatments. While some cases might be hoaxes, the author argues that the psychological distress experienced by victims makes a blanket explanation of hoaxing untenable.

This leads to two possibilities: either new, unknown optical illusions or hallucinations, or foreign technology representing a superior level of intelligence. The author urges caution, acknowledging that human perception is not fully understood, and new optical illusions might exist. However, he stresses that ufologists must diligently examine recent psychological studies to ensure phenomena are not simply misinterpretations of known psychological effects.

An anecdote from the 18th century illustrates this point, where meteorites were dismissed as optical illusions. The author warns against becoming too subtle in explanations, lest genuine phenomena be overlooked. He concludes that ufologists must remain open to the possibility of alien technology and that UFO observations represent real events. The vastness of the universe suggests that other intelligent species may have achieved interstellar travel. Therefore, it is crucial for humanity to scientifically examine UFO observations, as ignoring potential evidence of other intelligent beings would be a grave mistake.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine, through its editorial and articles, adopts a stance of rational inquiry into UFO phenomena. It emphasizes scientific investigation, critical analysis of witness testimony, and the importance of distinguishing between explained and unexplained events. The publication aims to be a platform for discussion and research, encouraging members to contribute and report observations. There is a clear rejection of mere "belief" in favor of evidence-based study. The magazine also acknowledges the controversies and skepticism surrounding ufology, advocating for a balanced and open-minded approach while remaining grounded in scientific principles. The recurring theme is the complex interplay between the human element (witnesses, perception, societal attitudes) and the objective reality of unexplained aerial phenomena. The editorial stance is one of persistent, scientific pursuit of understanding, even in the face of challenges and the potential for misinterpretation.

This issue of Flying Saucer Review, Volume 18, Issue 9, dated July-August 1972, focuses on the complexities surrounding UFO sightings, reporting, and scientific investigation. It critically examines the human factor in UFO phenomena, the role of the scientific community, and delves into the controversial Roswell incident.

The Reporting Process

The article begins by addressing the common misconception that people who see UFOs will report them. It highlights that the vast majority of sightings go unreported. A study indicated that only about one in eight individuals formally report their UFO observations to authorities like the police or military. While many people discuss their sightings with friends and family, formal reporting is rare. Several reasons contribute to this hesitation: the uncertainty of identifying an object as a genuine UFO versus an ordinary phenomenon, the lack of a clear, designated agency for reporting, and the pervasive fear of ridicule. The text notes that individuals who do report sightings are often subjected to mockery from family, friends, and even professional groups.

Furthermore, the issue of false reports is raised, with a significant percentage of UFO stories appearing in the media being attributed to hoaxes, often perpetrated by young individuals seeking attention. However, these hoaxes are presented as a minor fraction of reported UFOs.

A common myth debunked is that highly educated individuals are less likely to report UFOs. In fact, the opposite is suggested: more educated individuals, especially scientists, are more likely to report because they are perceived as more credible and have better access to reporting channels. Studies on astronomers and engineers showed higher reporting rates (18% and 22% respectively) compared to the general population (13%).

Another misconception addressed is that UFO sightings are always reported in newspapers. The publication process for UFO reports in the media is not directly correlated with the number of sightings. Only a small fraction of reports are published, and there is little direct link between the number of sightings and press coverage.

The Scientific Decision-Makers

The role of the scientific community in determining what is considered 'real' is emphasized, particularly in the context of UFOs. The article argues that to understand the scientific community's reaction to UFO observations, it must be viewed as a social system operated by humans, not just a disembodied logic system. While a majority of scientists believe in the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life, they generally favor electromagnetic signals as the means of contact, rather than direct physical contact via vehicles or probes.

Skeptical researchers tend to question the reliability of UFO testimonies, focusing on the witness's credibility, viewing conditions, and the presence of material evidence. They also assess whether the observed phenomena conform to known standards and exhibit intelligent behavior. The article suggests that, from a scientific research perspective, the average reliability of UFO testimony is poor, with most reports receiving routine explanations. Scientists who have personal UFO experiences are often even more critical.

While ufologists might argue that only inexplicable cases are worth examining, researchers contend that even these might eventually find natural explanations with more information. The chances of a researcher finding a truly valid, unexplained UFO case are slim. Moreover, many researchers are unaware of the number of potentially valid cases that are not adequately examined.

A discouraging aspect highlighted is the popularization of UFO information. Books with less scientific rigor, like "Chariots of the Gods" and works by Frank Edwards, achieve far greater sales than serious scientific investigations by figures like J. Allen Hynek or Allan Hendry, indicating that sensationalism sells better than serious research.

The Roswell Mystery

The article then shifts focus to the Roswell incident, presenting it as a case that has been subject to significant mythologizing, partly due to authors like Charles Berlitz. However, it aims to highlight the factual aspects of the event.

The Roswell incident began with an extraordinary press release on July 8, 1947, from the public relations officer of the Roswell Army Air Base, announcing the recovery of a 'flying disk'. This was immediately reported by various newspapers, including the San Francisco News.

The initial press release stated that the 'disk' was found on a ranch near Roswell and was flown to 'higher headquarters'. The intelligence office reported gaining possession of the 'disk' through cooperation with a Roswell rancher and the sheriff. Residents near the ranch reported seeing a strange blue light.

The Roswell Daily Record reported that Major J.A. Marcel was tasked with organizing the search. Lieutenant Walter Haut issued the official communiqué. However, military authorities quickly issued a denial, claiming the recovered object was merely a weather balloon. A staged event was organized with military experts identifying debris as parts of a 'Rawin' balloon to mislead reporters.

The article presents the testimony of Major Jesse Marcel, who investigated the debris. Marcel stated that the object was not a balloon and was unlike anything he had seen before. He described fragments of metal, thin as tin foil but incredibly strong, and a parchment-like substance with 'hieroglyphs'. He believed the object had exploded in the air and was not of human manufacture.

Despite the official explanation, the article suggests that the military's actions, including the initial announcement and subsequent debunking, marked the beginning of the UFO 'blackout' and 'debunking' campaign in the US. It questions the fate of the debris collected by Major Marcel and suggests that the military possessed materials with extraordinary properties, indicative of a technology far beyond contemporary human capabilities.

The Duplicity of the American Air Force

This section further explores the official response to the Roswell incident. It mentions that before the creation of Project SIGN in December 1947, the Air Force engaged the FBI to investigate 'flying discs'. Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act suggest the FBI was mandated to investigate from July 30 to October 1, 1947. However, the FBI reportedly ceased its investigations because it realized the Air Force was using its services to investigate hoaxes, attributing fabricated UFO crash debris to American-made objects.

A teletyped message to the FBI indicated that on July 8, a disk-shaped object, possibly hexagonal, was recovered near Roswell and sent to Wright Fields via a special aircraft for analysis. The sender is unknown, but it was suggested to be an FBI 'antenna' at the Pentagon.

The article concludes that this confirms suspicions about the US Air Force's role in covering up authentic UFO cases by presenting them as hoaxes. It questions the whereabouts of the Roswell debris and suggests that the materials recovered possessed extraordinary properties, indicating a non-human origin.

Conclusion

Ron Westrum, a sociologist from the University of Michigan, emphasizes the importance of considering the human factor in UFO observations. He argues that our preconceived notions about how people would behave are constantly challenged by real research data. Understanding human behavior is crucial for comprehending the UFO phenomenon as a whole.

In a postscript, the author muses on the possibility of relying solely on non-human observers for UFO data, which would be ideal but requires significant technological resources and government commitment. Until such resources are available, the focus remains on utilizing available human resources and hoping for more powerful tools in the future.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue include the challenges of UFO reporting, the skepticism and reluctance of the scientific community to engage with the topic, and the alleged government cover-up of UFO incidents, particularly exemplified by the Roswell event. The editorial stance appears to be critical of official explanations and supportive of the idea that UFO phenomena warrant serious investigation, suggesting that the military has actively worked to suppress information and discredit genuine sightings.

This issue of "Nouvelles internationales" presents a collection of articles focusing on significant UFO and UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) events, alongside announcements for ufology-related conferences.

Un OVNI en Forme de Spirale au-dessus de la Chine

The issue begins with a report detailing a sighting of a spiral-shaped UFO over China on July 24, 1981. The event was reported by a correspondent named Q.Z., who received a telegram about a luminous object observed in the northern sky. The report elaborates on a peasant's account, Tian Jinfu, who described a round, luminous object like the moon, which later developed a "luminous tail" that coiled around it, creating a spiral shape resembling a dragon. This phenomenon was observed for five minutes and was described as transparent with multicolored hues.

Further accounts from China are presented, including a report from Wu Guoguang, president of the scientific and technical committee of the Shui autonomous district, who observed a luminous, fan-shaped object rotating counter-clockwise. In Xichang, over three thousand spectators witnessed a spiral-shaped object described as a splendid ball, emitting white-green lights and moving slowly.

An astronomer from the Yunnan observatory, Zhang Zousheng, had previously predicted the appearance of such UFOs over northwestern and southwestern China between July 24 and 29. His prediction proved accurate, bringing much excitement to Chinese ufologists.

The article includes a personal account from Wu Zhihong, who took photographs of the phenomenon. He describes the object as a luminous yellow oval that moved slowly, initially thought to be a new star or a comet. As it progressed, its tail became brighter and began to rotate, forming a spiral. He estimated the object's altitude at 200 km and its speed at over 10 km/second.

Le Cas Greenhaw: Analyse et Doute

The second major section of the magazine focuses on the "mini-wave" of UFO sightings in October 1973 in the USA and Canada, with a particular emphasis on the case of Brigadier Jeffrey Greenhaw in Falkville, Alabama.

The case, initially considered a classic in ufology, involves Greenhaw's encounter with a metallic, humanoid-like entity on October 17, 1973. The entity was described as being about 5 to 6 feet tall, with a human-like proportion, wearing a one-piece silver suit with a helmet. Greenhaw took four photographs of the entity, which are presented in the article.

Detailed analysis of the photographs and Greenhaw's testimony suggests the entity exhibited mechanical, rather than biological, behavior. Its movements were described as stiff and robotic, and it did not react to the police car's lights or Greenhaw's presence in a typical human manner. The analysis suggests the entity might have been tele-guided.

However, the article also introduces doubts about the case, referencing an article by Frank Sikkora and an investigation by Marion Webb for NICAP. Webb's findings suggest the possibility of a hoax, where Webb himself, dressed in a modified firefighter uniform with aluminum foil, could have mimicked the entity's appearance. Webb also questioned the role of the anonymous woman who initially called the police.

The ICUFON (International UFO Congress) responded to these doubts, asserting that a detailed examination of Webb's explanation rendered it untenable. They noted that the US Army's Redstone Arsenal confirmed no use of specialized silver fire-resistant suits, suggesting a possible disinformation campaign by "The Birmingham News" and "UFO Investigator."

ICUFON argues against the possibility of a hoax by Greenhaw himself, given Falkville's small, close-knit community. They also dismiss a third-party hoax due to the number of people who would have had to be involved and the verification of military clothing stores.

Forum de la Recherche Parallèle

The magazine announces the "2nd Forum de la recherche parallèle," organized by SOBEPS and KADATH, to be held in Brussels on November 27 and 28. The forum includes a series of conferences on various topics related to archaeology and UFO phenomena.

Scheduled speakers and topics include:

• Michel Bougard: "Enlevés par des extra-terrestres ? : le point sur l'affaire Hill"
• Jacques Gossart: "L'affaire de Glozel"
• Jean-Claude Bourret: "OVNI : LA PRISE DE CONSCIENCE MONDIALE"
• Bertrand Méheust: "Science-fiction et soucoupes volantes"
• Eugène Zimmer: "Géographie Sacrée"
• Pierre Kohler: "Recherche d'une vie extra-terrestre et possibilité d'univers parallèles"
• Pierre Méreaux and Jacques Victoor: "Carnac, une porte vers l'Inconnu"
• KADATH: "L'ENIGME DE L'ATLANTIDE" with participation from Jacques d'Arès, Pierre Carnac, Jacques Victoor, and Jacques Gossart.

Exhibitions of books and dedications by invited speakers are also planned.

Erratum

An "Erratum" section corrects a paragraph in a previous text by Michel Monnerie concerning statistics related to UFO observations, pointing out calculation errors and questioning the rigor of a scientific report from GEPAN.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue demonstrates a strong focus on UFO phenomena, presenting both detailed case studies and broader discussions on the scientific and cultural aspects of UAP sightings. The magazine appears to maintain a stance of critical inquiry, presenting evidence, expert analysis, and also acknowledging controversies and potential hoaxes within the field of ufology. The inclusion of upcoming conferences suggests an active engagement with the ufological community and a commitment to exploring these unexplained phenomena. The detailed examination of the Greenhaw case, in particular, highlights the challenges and debates surrounding the verification and interpretation of UFO evidence.

This issue of Inforespace, identified as issue number 55, delves into two significant topics within ufology: the investigation of the Jeffrey Greenhaw case and an extensive exploration of the 'Adamski myth.' The magazine presents detailed analyses, witness testimonies, and photographic evidence, while also questioning the authenticity of some of the most iconic UFO reports.

The Greenhaw Case: A Potential Hoax?

The issue begins by detailing the investigation into the case of Jeffrey Greenhaw, who claimed to have observed a humanoid and taken photographs on October 17, 1973. Initial verification by ICUFON attested to the veracity of Greenhaw's observation. However, an analysis conducted for NICAP by Marion Webb suggested the possibility of a mystification orchestrated by Greenhaw and a friend. Webb's investigation focused on two main areas: the analysis of Greenhaw's photographs by William Spaulding and Fred Adrian, and interviews with Greenhaw's acquaintances.

Spaulding and Adrian's analysis, using techniques like contour enhancement and artificial coloring, concluded that the photos did not indisputably prove an extraterrestrial creature. They suggested the photos might represent a humorous attempt to depict an alien entity. Further analysis indicated the creature's suit was a fire-retardant garment with aluminum protection, with the aluminum pieces seemingly placed to conceal manufacturing marks. The anatomical features in the photos were deemed normal, or 'human.'

Marion Webb's investigation also uncovered a series of distressing events that befell Greenhaw after the sighting. These included alleged 'brainwashing' attempts, anonymous threats, a car explosion on October 21, 1973, the breakdown of his family life with his wife seeking divorce by October 29, the destruction of his caravan by fire on November 9, and the posting of his own death notice on his car's windshield on November 14. These events led to Greenhaw's resignation from the police force on November 15, with some suggesting it was a 'forced resignation.'

The article posits that while the Greenhaw case might be a mystification, the evidence from Spaulding's analysis does not directly implicate Greenhaw himself. It also notes the lack of detail regarding Webb's interviews, questioning what compelling information they might have contained.

The Adamski Myth: A Foundation of Contacteeism

The second major section of the magazine is dedicated to the 'Adamski myth,' focusing on George Adamski, who claimed to have made contact with a Venusian on November 20, 1952, near Desert Center, California. Adamski, born in Poland in 1891, emigrated to the US and later settled in California, where he founded the 'Royal Order of Tibet.'

Adamski's contact event was reportedly witnessed by six people from a distance of 1 to 1.5 km, who signed an affidavit. However, one of these witnesses, M. Bailey, later retracted his statement in 1954, claiming he and his friends saw nothing. The article notes that Adamski became famous for providing numerous photographs of flying saucers, including iconic images of a 'Venusian scout' taken on December 13, 1952, at Palomar Gardens. These photos, taken with a telescope, depicted a bell-shaped object with multiple 'hublots' (portholes) and landing gear.

The issue highlights the analysis of Adamski's photographs, particularly by J.G. Dohmen, who attempted to reconstruct the object's dimensions and architecture. Dohmen's work suggested consistency between the 1952 photographs and a later, less clear polaroid photo allegedly taken by a Venusian from inside a scout, showing Adamski and an occupant. However, the article points out potential flaws in this analysis, particularly regarding the polaroid photo, suggesting it might be a model due to the absence of expected reflections.

The Influence and Proliferation of the Adamski Model

The magazine traces the influence of Adamski's reports and photographs on subsequent UFO sightings and contactee claims. It details several cases where similar objects were reported and photographed:

• J.E. Baker: A friend of Adamski, Baker was attributed a photograph similar to Adamski's scout, but he reportedly denied taking it. The article suggests Adamski may have pressured Baker to participate in lectures to profit from his photo.
• Stephen Darbishire (UK): In 1954, a 13-year-old boy and his cousin photographed an object resembling Adamski's scout near Coniston.
• Jerrold E. Baker (USA): In 1952, Baker photographed an object described as similar to Adamski's 'Venusian scout,' though the image was blurry.
• Carl Anderson (USA): In 1954, Anderson reported a telepathic contact with a flying saucer similar in shape to Adamski's.
• Howard Menger (USA): Menger, another contactee, published books in the 1950s and 1960s featuring photographs of objects that closely resembled Adamski's scout, some even showing a pilot.
• Frank E. Stranges (USA): His book 'The Stranger at the Pentagon' included photos of objects described as 'Adamski-like.'
• Hugo Luyo Vega (Peru): In 1973, Vega photographed two objects resembling the Adamski scout.
• Kazuhiko Fujimatsu (Japan): In 1974, Fujimatsu photographed two UFOs, one of which was the size of the Adamski scout.
• Cedric Allingham (UK): In 1955, Allingham published 'Flying Saucers From Mars,' featuring photographs of objects identical to Adamski's, but claiming Martian origin.

The article also discusses films of UFOs, including one purportedly taken by C. Roddefer in 1952, which shows a transforming object, suggesting a potential hoax. Adamski himself also produced films, which Marc Hallet reportedly described as mostly faked, except for one of poor quality.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout the issue is the pervasive influence of George Adamski's claims and imagery on the field of ufology. The magazine meticulously documents numerous cases that appear to replicate or echo Adamski's original reports and photographs, raising questions about authenticity and potential fabrication. The editorial stance appears to be one of critical inquiry, urging readers to consider the evidence carefully and acknowledge the possibility of hoaxes and misinterpretations within UFO research. The Greenhaw case serves as a contemporary example of how initial reports can be subjected to rigorous analysis and skepticism. The issue concludes by emphasizing the need for caution and further investigation, suggesting that the 'Adamski myth' continues to shape perceptions of UFO phenomena.

This issue, titled "Etude de différents aspects du phénomène OVNI (4)" and published by Inforespace in July 1974 as part of volume 16, delves into various facets of the UFO phenomenon. It presents detailed case studies, discusses physical evidence, and critically examines the work of ufological organizations.

Case Study 1: Joinville, Brazil (September 26 or 27, 1968)

This case, reported by Henrique Schneider Jr., describes an encounter with a cone-shaped UFO approximately 4 meters high with a 2.50-meter base diameter, resting on three legs. Two panels, about 0.50m wide and 1.50m high, emerged from the craft and approached the witness. Schneider experienced a telepathic conversation lasting about ten minutes before the panels retracted into the UFO. The object then ascended rapidly with a high-pitched whistle and a strong air suction, before departing as a blue point of light. Physical traces included a 65 cm diameter circle of burned grass, a smaller 10 cm depressed circle in the center, and tripod marks. The incident also caused damage to a nearby truck, including a discharged battery and damaged distributor and dynamo, suggesting a powerful electromagnetic field. The smell of burnt oil or petroleum lingered for months, and vegetation did not regrow in the affected area for years.

Case Study 2: New Berlin, New York, USA (November 25, 1964)

Marianne H. reported observing a luminous object that hovered near her home. The object, described as elongated with a diameter of 8 to 15 cm and resting on a tripod about 2 meters high, emitted intense light. She observed, using binoculars, five to seven tall, human-like beings (over 2 meters) emerging from the craft. These beings worked on a module, approximately 30 cm wide and 60 cm high, which they removed from the underside of the UFO. A second, similar UFO arrived, and its occupants assisted in the repair. After about seven minutes, the repair seemed complete, and the module was reinserted into the UFO. The beings then collected their tools and departed. The witness also found a piece of cable with a "paper" sheath, containing metallic bands resembling aluminum.

Case Study 3: New Baden, Illinois, USA (March 21, 1967)

Madame L. B. reported being awakened by excessive heat and observing a brilliant, orange, dome-shaped object in a nearby field. The object, estimated to be about 18 meters in diameter, landed about 300 meters away. After 10 to 15 minutes, it ascended slowly and silently. Traces included a large circle of completely withered plants, and five depressions, each 90 cm in diameter and 25 cm deep, spaced three meters apart. These depressions contained a malodorous liquid. The withered circle remained visible in September 1971. The article notes the variety of plant damage observed in different cases (withered, dried, burned, carbonized, disappeared, or phosphorescent) and speculates on the nature of the radiation involved. The foul-smelling liquid left in the indentations is highlighted as a significant, yet uncollected, piece of evidence.

Commentary on Traces and Phenomena

The commentary section discusses the unusual nature of robot occupants in the Joinville case and the curious aspects of the traces, such as the lingering petroleum odor. It emphasizes the importance of analyzing such materials to understand the composition and potential effects of substances emitted by UFOs. The permanent damage to the truck in the Joinville case is noted as rare, suggesting a powerful, unusual electromagnetic field. The paralysis experienced by the witness is considered a physiological effect, but not necessarily requiring extreme field strength.

Regarding the New Berlin case, the article questions the witness's ability to accurately estimate the 2-3 cm gap in the module repair from a distance of 1200 meters with 7x binoculars, suggesting potential memory distortion over the nine years between the event and the investigation. This leads to a set of recommendations for witnesses of landings, emphasizing careful documentation, protection of traces, prompt reporting to ufological groups, and immediate written accounts.

The New Baden case's withered plant circle is presented as a common landing trace, but the malodorous liquid is of particular interest. The author laments the lack of sample collection for analysis, which could have provided crucial information about extraterrestrial organic compounds or unique isotopic compositions.

Critique of GEPAN

A significant portion of the magazine is dedicated to a critical review of the GEPAN (Groupe d'Études des Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-identifiés) organization, particularly its presence at the Bourget Air Show in 1981. The author, Jean Sider, expresses disappointment with GEPAN's modest display and its director, Alain Esterle's, distant attitude. Sider criticizes GEPAN's conclusions, which he feels are too similar to those of Project Blue Book and do not adequately consider the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence. He argues that GEPAN behaves as if the UFO phenomenon is recent, ignoring its long history. Sider also questions GEPAN's focus on debunking hoaxes and analyzing mundane phenomena (like lenticular clouds and condensation trails) rather than investigating more compelling, serious sightings. He suggests that GEPAN's approach serves to discredit the UFO phenomenon and convince the public that such events are mere fantasies.

Sider further criticizes GEPAN's technical notes, which he claims are overly technical, statistical, and designed to obscure rather than clarify. He points out that three of the five new technical notes were dedicated to dismantling well-known cases, including one famously attributed to a hoax. He contrasts this with GEPAN's lack of technical notes on significant cases like Cussac and Bozalec. Sider concludes that GEPAN was not created to reveal truths about UFOs but rather to demystify fraudulent cases and analyze the work of private researchers.

Book Reviews and Announcements

The issue includes a section listing and briefly describing numerous books on UFOs and related topics, covering historical accounts, specific cases, scientific analyses, and extraterrestrial hypotheses. Titles range from "La Chronique des OVNI" and "Mystérieux Objets Célestes" to works by Jacques Vallée and J. Allen Hynek. It also features announcements for the magazine "Kadath," focusing on archaeology, and for an optical instrument shop in Brussels.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the detailed investigation of specific UFO sightings, the analysis of physical evidence left behind, and a critical perspective on official and semi-official ufological organizations. The magazine appears to advocate for rigorous, open-minded research into the UFO phenomenon, while expressing skepticism towards organizations that seem to prioritize debunking or downplaying the potential for extraterrestrial contact. The editorial stance leans towards acknowledging the reality of unexplained aerial phenomena and the possibility of non-human intelligence, urging for thorough documentation and scientific inquiry.