Inforespace - No 95 - 1997

Magazine Overview

Title: inforespace
Issue: n° 95
Volume: 26th year
Date: October 1997
Publisher: Société Belge d'Etude des Phénomènes Spatiaux, asbl (SOBEPS)
Country: Belgium
Language: French

This issue of "inforespace" focuses on ufology and spatial phenomena, with a significant portion dedicated to the Belgian UFO wave of 1989-1991 and the official response from the Belgian Ministry of Defence. The magazine also touches upon the evolving landscape of ufological research and the challenges of interpreting historical cases.

Editorial: Apology and Outlook

The editorial by Michel Bougard, President of SOBEPS, begins with an apology for the delay in publishing issue n° 95. He attributes the delay to a chronic lack of collaborators and challenges in article preparation, emphasizing the need for quality writers and time. Bougard promises that issue n° 96 is nearly ready and that two substantial issues will be published in 1998. He also reminds readers to renew their subscriptions. The editorial reflects on the media's coverage of UFOs in 1997, noting the proliferation of films and articles on extraterrestrial encounters, but criticizes the lack of new information and the tendency towards sensationalism or skepticism. He questions the underlying intentions of these media productions, suggesting they might be driven by commercial interests rather than a genuine desire to prepare humanity for potential extraterrestrial contact. The editorial concludes with New Year's wishes to the readers.

Book and Pin Sales

The "SERVICE LIBRAIRIE DE LA SOBEPS" section advertises several books available for purchase, including "DES SOCOUPES VOLANTES AUX OVNI" by Michel Bougard, "ACTES DU PREMIER CONGRES EUROPEEN SUR LES PHENOMENES AERIENS ANORMAUX," "MYSTERIEUSES SOCOUPES VOLANTES" by Fernand Lagarde, "BLACK-OUT SUR LES SOCOUPES VOLANTES" by Jimmy Guieu, and "ET SI LES OVNI N'EXISTAIENT PAS?" by Michel Monnerie. It also announces the arrival of the SOBEPS pin, a five-color enamel pin, available for purchase to support the organization.

Organizational Information

The "inforespace" masthead identifies the publication as the organ of the "Société Belge d'Etude des Phénomènes Spatiaux, asbl," with its address in Brussels, Belgium. Key personnel are listed: Michel Bougard (President), Lucien Clerebaut (Secrétaire Général and Editeur responsable), Christian Lonchay (Trésorier), and Marc Valckenaers (Conception et réalisation).

Table of Contents

• The table of contents includes:
• Editorial
• "La réponse du ministre Poncelet à une question parlementaire relative aux OVNI."
• "Va-t-on vers un révisionnisme ufologique ?"
• "Etude approfondie et discussion de certaines observations du 29.11.89"
• "Vient de paraître" (What's New)

La réponse du ministre Poncelet à une question parlementaire relative aux OVNI

This section details the official response from the Belgian Minister of National Defence, Jean-Pol Poncelet, to a parliamentary question from Deputy Van Eetvelt regarding UFO sightings between winter 1989/90 and spring 1991. The response, dated May 1997, addresses several points:

1. Flights by Belgian Armed Forces: Flights from November 1989 to March 1991 were described as conventional and not the basis for the observations at the time.
2. Observations attributed to AWACS: A series of observations near Namur/Gembloux on October 18, 1990, were attributed to a radar AWACS aircraft conducting exercises. The response notes that unidentified radar echoes are physical phenomena, sometimes caused by temperature inversions, and do not constitute sufficient evidence for OVNI presence.
3. Visits to Zaventem Airport: Visits by Air Force officers to Zaventem control rooms are routine for training and security purposes. The presence of military personnel and unidentified radar echoes on December 5, 1989, were considered normal activities and not reported as exceptional.
4. Air Force Assistance: The Air Force provided assistance in studying UFO observations in 1989 and 1991, a decision made by the then Minister of Defence, Guy Coëme. This collaboration aimed to better understand anomalous phenomena but did not result in a dedicated official research cell. The response notes that current research is conducted by individual members of SOBEPS' scientific committee, with logistical support from military organizations and universities.
5. Unexplained Phenomena: The response highlights that most UFO observations brought to the attention of the Ministry of Defence remain unexplained. Military experts consulted exclude conventional hypotheses, such as night flights by conventional aircraft (which require authorization and flight plans), stealth aircraft (which have specific operational limitations and noise profiles), RPVs (which had ceased operations in Belgium before the wave), and ULMs (which are not authorized for night flight and have limited capabilities).
6. AWACS: AWACS aircraft are described as large, noisy, easily detectable by radar, and always operate with a flight plan. The Ministry confirmed no AWACS were present in Belgian airspace during the reported ground observations in Glons.
7. LoFLYTE: The article addresses the hypothesis of the LoFLYTE, a sophisticated US aircraft project, as an explanation for the Belgian UFO wave. It states that the project was not sufficiently advanced by 1989/90 to explain the sightings and that invoking it is impossible.

The response concludes that while some events could be explained, others remain subjects for in-depth research. It also notes the similarity between the characteristics of military and gendarmerie testimonies and those recorded by SOBEPS, suggesting the coherence of unexplained elements.

Va-t-on vers un révisionnisme ufologique ?

This article by Jean Lacouture expresses concern about what he perceives as a "revisionism" in ufology, particularly regarding the Belgian UFO wave. He criticizes analyses that attempt to explain away these phenomena with simplistic or biased interpretations, often stemming from a lack of information or a deliberate distortion of data. Lacouture contrasts the "viscosity of the possible" that surrounds such events with the need for rigorous investigation. He laments that UFO research often becomes a banal subject of controversy, bogged down by repetitive arguments and a lack of progress. The author calls for a more critical and open-minded approach, urging researchers to preserve archival data and to avoid succumbing to simplistic explanations or conspiracy theories. He emphasizes the importance of memory and history in understanding UFO phenomena and warns against the selective construction of narratives that can distort reality.

Etude approfondie et discussion de certaines observations du 29 novembre 1989

This article by A. Meessen, a professor at U.C.L., provides a detailed re-examination of the UFO observations from November 29, 1989, specifically focusing on the case reported by two gendarmes from Eupen. Meessen recounts the incident, describing a triangular object with distinct features, including three large headlights and a red central light, hovering over a field. He details the object's movement, its silent operation, and its intense illumination of the ground. The article notes that seven other independent witnesses also observed the phenomenon. Meessen discusses the initial disbelief from military authorities when the gendarmes reported the sighting. He also addresses the subsequent attempts to explain the event, including the suggestion that a "luminous ball" over the Gileppe was Venus, or that the initial observation was of a conventional aircraft or a ULM. Meessen argues that the case, despite attempts at rationalization, remains strong and unique, contributing to the extraordinary nature of the Belgian UFO wave. He highlights that SOBEPS has collected around 150 UFO testimonies from November 29, 1989, in the Liège province, underscoring the significance of this event.

ERRATA

An erratum is included, apologizing for a technical issue that distorted an article by Nick Pope titled "Considérations ufologiques" in a previous issue (n° 94). The error involved an incomplete translation that made the text difficult to read. The English version of the article is available upon request.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the analysis of UFO phenomena, particularly the Belgian UFO wave, and the critical examination of official responses and media coverage. There is a clear stance against simplistic explanations and a call for rigorous, evidence-based research. The magazine champions the preservation of UFO archives and encourages a more open and less biased approach to the subject, while also expressing concern about the potential for "revisionism" that seeks to dismiss or reframe historical UFO cases without sufficient justification. The editorial stance is one of critical inquiry, advocating for a deeper understanding of unexplained aerial phenomena and challenging both official dismissals and sensationalist interpretations.

This document is an excerpt from the Belgian UFO magazine "Inforespace", specifically issue "hors série n°8". It details an in-depth investigation into a specific UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) case that occurred on November 29, 1989, near the Gileppe dam in Belgium. The primary focus is on refuting the "Venus hypothesis" proposed by Paul Vanbrabant, which suggested that the observed phenomenon was merely the planet Venus.

The Gileppe Case and the Venus Hypothesis

The article begins by describing the author's undertaking to verify claims made by Paul Vanbrabant, co-founder of NUFOC (National UFO Center). Vanbrabant had accused the initial investigation of being superficial and concluded that the observed phenomenon was unconventional, with at least two objects seen above Eupen. He specifically identified the light above Gileppe as Venus, leaving only one "unidentified object". Vanbrabant's letter suggested that the gendarmes' observations and conclusions were flawed and that a new, in-depth study was needed.

Vanbrabant's arguments against the gendarmes' account included:
1. Astronomical programs showing Venus in the observation direction with high magnitude.
2. The sky being clear, making the gendarmes' claim of not seeing Venus "strongly doubtful".
3. The gendarmes interrupting their observations, leading to a potential misidentification upon returning to Kortenbach.
4. The description of a "luminous ball" with light rays was inaccurate, and astronomers know that Venus near the horizon can produce visual effects due to atmospheric refraction.

The author states that Vanbrabant's letter, sent to 16 other individuals, also contained a threat to release information to the press if a response was not received by January 1997. Vanbrabant claimed that astronomical checks with Dr. Ronny Blomme of the Royal Observatory allowed him to "present sufficient evidence to explain the gendarmes' observations as being due to the planet Venus".

It is revealed that Paul Vanbrabant had noticed Venus in the summer of 1996 and had informed Wim Van Utrecht of Caelestia, who was preparing an article on the "Belgian wave" for a book. Vanbrabant's letter was sent to Van Utrecht.

The author expresses his strong disapproval of the "method of threats" used by Vanbrabant, emphasizing that it is not appropriate in human relations or science.

The True Astronomical Data

To investigate further, the author requested copies of the astronomical data used by Vanbrabant. The author himself used the "Tellstar" program to analyze the sky on the evening of November 29, 1989, near the Gileppe dam. He plotted the apparent trajectories of the Sun and Venus and indicated the direction of an illuminated tower where the "light" had appeared stationary.

The author determined the direction of the tower to be 205°. He notes that one gendarme mentioned the light being slightly to the left of the tower, while later, at Kortenbach (around 18:30), Venus was to the right of the tower. This indicated an initial discrepancy of at least 10°, which would increase as Venus moves relative to Earth, thus not supporting the Venus hypothesis.

He then compared his findings with data provided by Dr. Ronny Blomme from the Royal Observatory. Blomme's data, presented as global sky maps, also indicated Venus's position. After accounting for local time and atmospheric refraction, the author found that while Blomme's data generally agreed, the temporal correction changed the problem. The author's own trajectory data (black circles) and Blomme's (open circles) showed Venus's apparent trajectory was not significantly altered by atmospheric refraction, but the time correction introduced discrepancies.

The Gendarmes' Observations

The gendarmes, von Montigny and Nicoll, reportedly discovered the UAP around 17:20. They described the object's shape, lights, and unusual behavior, noting it was not a conventional object. The possibility of astronomical confusion was considered unlikely because the gendarmes had interrupted their pursuit.

The author's initial investigation did not fully support the Venus hypothesis, but he deemed it worthy of thorough examination.

The New Investigation

Three arguments were presented to support the possibility of astronomical confusion:
1. The UAP's slow movement and bright lights might have led the gendarmes to expect such an aspect, not suspecting Venus.
2. The stationary nature of the "light" near the tower and the absence of sound were consistent with their initial observations.
3. The UAP reportedly moved away and disappeared towards the horizon around 19:30, which coincided with Venus setting (as shown in Figure 1). However, this could be a coincidence.

During this period, the author received correspondence from Jacques Bonabot of GESAG, who questioned the exceptional nature of the gendarmes' observations, stating "it's too beautiful to be true." Bonabot also claimed the Gileppe lake is not visible from Kortenbach, a point the gendarmes did not dispute, only stating they saw a light above the lake.

Analysis of the Venus Hypothesis

The article then delves into a detailed analysis of why the Venus hypothesis is unlikely.

• Movement and Position: The gendarmes observed the object moving towards the Gileppe dam and then becoming stationary near an illuminated tower. This behavior is inconsistent with Venus's predictable astronomical movement, especially when considering the visual perspective from their location.
• The "Red Balls" Phenomenon: A significant element that the Venus hypothesis fails to explain is the observation of "red balls." These were described as having parallel, progressive beams and were observed in other UAP cases associated with the Belgian wave.
• Gendarmes' Testimony: The gendarmes' detailed accounts, including their attentive observation and the duration of the phenomenon, suggest they were observing something other than a celestial body. Their testimony about the object's movement and its stationary position relative to the tower is crucial.
• Lack of Confusion: The gendarmes were not in a moving vehicle during the key observation near the tower, negating the argument that their perception might have been distorted by motion, similar to how the moon can appear to follow a car.
• Directional Discrepancies: The initial directional observations of the object and Venus showed significant discrepancies (10° to 25°), which increased over time, further undermining the Venus hypothesis.

The Phenomenon of Red Balls

The "red balls" phenomenon is presented as a key element that makes astronomical confusion impossible. The author describes these as having large-amplitude, symmetrical, and repetitive movements with distinct phases. He notes that this phenomenon was observed in other UAP cases associated with the Belgian wave, suggesting it was a recurring and significant aspect of these events.

Alternative Hypotheses

While refuting the Venus hypothesis, the article also considers other explanations:

• ULM (Ultra-Light Motorized) Hypothesis: This hypothesis, supported by figures like Werner Walter, suggests that UAPs are conventional aircraft, possibly secret American planes or ULMs. However, the author argues that the observed phenomena, particularly the "red balls" and the specific movements, are not consistent with known conventional aircraft.
• Atmospheric Phenomena and Optical Illusions: The article discusses how atmospheric conditions, such as temperature inversions and refractions, can create optical illusions and distort visual perception. It references Michel Bougard's work on how intense light sources can produce visual effects like rays and star-like appearances. However, the author concludes that these phenomena cannot fully explain the specific characteristics of the Gileppe sighting, especially the "red balls" and the object's behavior.
• Socio-Psychological Experiment: The author suggests that the phenomenon might have been a "spectacle" produced intentionally to attract attention and study reactions, possibly as a socio-psychological experiment. This is considered more probable due to a series of global indicators and the logical implications of extraterrestrial visitors assessing humanity's maturity.

Conclusion

The article concludes that the Venus hypothesis is definitively not confirmed and is inconsistent with the observed facts. The author emphasizes the need for objective analysis that considers all hypotheses without prejudice, including the extraterrestrial one. The investigation into the Gileppe case highlights the complexity of UAP sightings and the challenges in finding conventional explanations for anomalous phenomena.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this article are the critical analysis of UAP explanations, the importance of rigorous investigation, the distinction between astronomical phenomena and anomalous aerial events, and the potential for misinterpretation of eyewitness testimony. The editorial stance is one of open-minded skepticism, advocating for thorough, evidence-based analysis of all hypotheses, including those considered unconventional, while firmly refuting unsubstantiated claims and methods of discrediting witnesses. The author champions a scientific approach that prioritizes objective data and logical reasoning over preconceived notions or personal biases.

This issue of Inforespace focuses on the Belgian UFO wave, particularly the events of November 29, 1989, and subsequent investigations and discussions. It presents detailed witness testimonies, analyzes object characteristics, and explores various hypotheses, including skeptical viewpoints and the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

Article 1: Werner Walter's Revisionist Approach

The article begins by critiquing Werner Walter's approach to the Belgian UFO wave, likening it to revisionist denial of historical events. Walter is accused of providing no concrete proof for his claims, suggesting that UFO candidates were merely ultra-light aircraft, experimental planes, or RPVs. He is quoted as hoping the pilot of such an aircraft would come forward. The author also notes Walter's mention of Wim Van Utrecht, who allegedly created a doctored photo resembling the Petit-Rechain case. Walter is further criticized for discrediting the Belgian wave and SOBEPS in international ufological publications.

Article 2: M. Vanbrabant's Open-Minded Inquiry

M. Vanbrabant's letter from March 20 is presented as more open-minded, suggesting consideration of hypotheses beyond the extraterrestrial, such as balloons, ULMs, or other light motorized aircraft. The author agrees with this broader approach, using the observations of gendarmes von Montigny and Nicoll (Figure 5) as a starting point. The article questions whether their sighting resembled a ULM, noting the object's ability to hover, move slowly at low altitudes, and its silent operation, which astonished the witnesses. The common characteristics of numerous UFOs observed with different shapes but shared features, employing unknown technology, are also highlighted. Six years later, no realistic conventional explanation has emerged.

Article 3: M. Bonabot's Obstacle Hypothesis

M. Bonabot is credited with attempting to explain a specific aspect of the gendarmes' observation: the object's apparent U-turn. He suggested the object might have turned back due to an obstacle, specifically a high-tension power line. The author investigates this, finding a power line near the presumed location but noting it was a standard 220V line, not high-tension, and at a normal height, not posing a threat to an aircraft flying at an estimated 120 meters. The object had also flown over other lines, buildings, and the town of Eupen, suggesting the power line was not a significant obstacle.

Article 4: Detailed Analysis of the Gendarmes' Observation

The author clarifies the location of the initial sighting by gendarmes von Montigny and Nicoll, correcting potential misunderstandings about the precise spot where the UFO turned back. The investigation confirms that the object moved over a flat prairie without obstacles, ruling out the power line theory. The author ponders why the UFO turned back, questioning if the occupants sensed the gendarmes' presence.

Article 5: The Core Problem and Criteria for Truth

M. Vanbrabant's letter concludes that the field of ufology is in an 'impasse,' with arguments being subjective. He suggests a panel of astronomers and meteorologists to provide a verdict on the Venus hypothesis. The author, however, argues that this juridical approach is unsuitable for truth-seeking. Instead, he emphasizes the need for objective observation of facts and the development of coherent mental models that align with these facts. He criticizes the scientific community's tendency to ignore or suppress new data that challenges established theories, leading to a 'repression' of the UFO phenomenon.

Article 6: Public and Scientific Response to UFOs

The article questions the role of public authorities, politicians, military, educators, and the scientific community in addressing the UFO phenomenon. It suggests that 'skeptics' often engage in 'flight forward' rather than genuine investigation. The author posits that emotional appeals by interest groups are not a productive response. He advocates for a rational approach, urging people to be astonished by the numerous UFO observations worldwide and to examine the facts attentively, questioning established ideas. The need for a global, detailed study of UFO phenomena, employing available resources, is stressed. The author believes that progress in understanding UFOs often occurs in small steps, punctuated by significant paradigm shifts.

Article 7: The 'Verdict' Idea and Dialogue

M. Vanbrabant's suggestion of a 'verdict' is discussed, with the author contrasting it with the pursuit of truth. He argues that while experts can resolve conflicts, they cannot dictate truth. The author calls for open dialogue among researchers, emphasizing the need for agreed-upon methods to avoid 'dialogue of the deaf.' He reiterates his 1991 stance: the objective is not to prove an extraterrestrial origin but to gather and examine observed facts and compare them with all ideas that might help understand the phenomenon.

Article 8: Interviews with Witnesses

Interview with Hubert von Montigny (First Part)

This section presents the first interview with Hubert von Montigny, conducted in December 1989 and reviewed in February 1997. Von Montigny recounts an observation of an object that moved slowly, then stopped. He describes its lights and its movement towards Garnstock and Roereke. He notes that the object was initially observed from the first floor of the barracks and later pursued by car. The object's lights are described as similar to those seen earlier. He recalls the object moving slowly, then stopping above a tower, exhibiting strong luminosity. He compares the light to a Christmas tree, with dark parts and bright white lights.

Interview with Hubert von Montigny (Second Part)

Von Montigny continues his account, describing the object's movement and its eventual stop above a panoramic tower. He emphasizes that the object was stationary, not moving left, right, forward, or backward. He describes the light as intense, like giant stadium lamps, and not comparable to stars. He mentions seeing reddish-orange 'rays' or 'pellets' emanating from the object, which would move away and then return. He compares this to a harpoon being thrown and then recalled. He also describes a 'reddish-orange' color for these emissions.

Interview with Hubert von Montigny (Third Part)

Von Montigny further details the 'rays' or 'pellets' emanating from the object, describing them as moving away and returning, sometimes appearing as a 'reddish-orange' ball. He notes that the object eventually moved away towards Spa, becoming a small speck. He reiterates that the object was initially stationary above the tower before moving.

Interview with Heinrich Nicoll

Heinrich Nicoll's interview, conducted in January 1997, corroborates parts of von Montigny's account. Nicoll also saw an object moving slowly, described as a luminous mass, not just a point of light. He confirms the object's movement towards Hertogenwald and then towards the illuminated tower. He states the object stopped near the tower, remaining immobile. He compares the light to headlights, bright and yellow, then white. He denies seeing any beams, describing a constant, normal light downwards. He notes the object moved slowly, as if guided, and progressed towards Spa. He also mentions seeing a second object that separated from the first.

Interview with Adjudant Joseph Schmitz

Adjudant Joseph Schmitz recounts an observation made at the Eupen barracks. He initially thought he saw an AWACS aircraft due to the lights (one above, one below) and a faint engine noise. However, he dismissed this idea due to the lack of typical AWACS engine sounds. He describes the object as approaching the barracks, appearing oblique, and then moving slowly towards Lontzen. He mentions seeing a red border on the object.

Article 9: Discussion on Object Characteristics and Witness Reliability

This section continues the interviews, with von Montigny and Nicoll discussing the object's characteristics in more detail. They describe the 'rays' or 'pellets' as reddish-orange and luminous, moving away from the object and returning. Von Montigny emphasizes the precision of the object's movements, likening them to 'work to the millimeter.' Nicoll also describes the object as having a constant light, which eventually became fainter as it moved away towards Spa. The reliability of witness testimony is implicitly discussed, with von Montigny defending his 32 years of gendarmerie service and stating he has never been sent to a psychiatrist.

Article 10: Further Witness Accounts and Analysis

The interviews continue with more detailed descriptions of the UFO's behavior, including the emission of 'pellets' and their return. The witnesses discuss the object's movement and the possible interpretation of its actions as 'measurements' or 'photography.' The author probes the witnesses about the speed, distance, and color of the observed phenomena. The discussion touches upon the difficulty of precise distance estimation without reference points and the subjective nature of perception.

Article 11: Accusations and Counter-Reactions

This section details a conflict within the ufological community. M. Bonabot is accused of making an attack in the GESAG bulletin without prior notification, criticizing those who maintain the extraterrestrial concept. He is quoted as calling such views 'dishonest.' M. Vanbrabant's letter is presented, where he expresses concern about aggressive opinions in Belgian ufology and suggests a more serene dialogue. He mentions an offer to explain his research on the Petit-Rechain photo to a small group, including Wim Van Utrecht. The author notes that M. Bonabot complained about the length of a meeting, stating there wasn't enough time for discussion, while the author emphasizes the meeting's objective was to provide objective data.

Article 12: The Venus Hypothesis and Bonabot's Argument

M. Bonabot's argument for the Venus hypothesis is presented, suggesting an optical effect amplified by the water mass of a dam and atmospheric refraction. The author finds this explanation lacking in detail. A letter from M. Bonabot to M. Vanbrabant reveals a shift in his stance, where he admits to being 'brusque' in mentioning the 'dishonesty' of researchers who see extraterrestrial craft in the November 29, 1989 events and the broader Belgian wave. He argues that seeing UFOs 'at every corner' for two years in the region requires blindness or extreme dishonesty.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes include the persistent mystery of the Belgian UFO wave, the challenges of objective investigation in ufology, the tension between skeptical and extraterrestrial hypotheses, and the importance of witness testimony. The editorial stance appears to favor a rigorous, evidence-based approach, critical of unsubstantiated claims and overly dismissive skepticism, while advocating for open dialogue and a commitment to uncovering the truth, whatever it may be. The author emphasizes the need for rational analysis and the development of coherent models to understand the phenomenon.

This issue of Inforespace, published by SOBEPS, focuses on the Belgian UFO wave of 1989-1991. It features a detailed debate between Auguste Meessen and M. Van Utrecht regarding the interpretation of specific sightings, particularly the Gileppe incident. The issue also includes reviews of significant books on ufology and discusses the methodology of UFO research.

Debate on the Gileppe Incident

The core of the issue revolves around a detailed exchange of letters and arguments between Auguste Meessen and M. Van Utrecht concerning a sighting by gendarmes near the Gileppe dam. Meessen presents his analysis, refuting Van Utrecht's attempts to explain the phenomenon solely as the planet Venus. Meessen highlights discrepancies in Van Utrecht's arguments, such as the perceived movement of the object and the witnesses' attention being drawn to the object rather than Venus.

Van Utrecht, in his 'comments,' maintains that the Venus hypothesis remains plausible, suggesting that the gendarmes' attention might have been diverted by 'reddish luminous effects' or a 'second object.' He also argues that the witnesses' attention would have been drawn to Venus if it were visible. Meessen counters by emphasizing the importance of objective analysis and considering all hypotheses without prejudice. He points out that Van Utrecht dismisses evidence that doesn't fit his preferred explanations, such as the 'red balls' phenomenon.

Van Utrecht's arguments are presented as attempts to minimize objective data, such as the final angular distance from the Gileppe tower. Meessen criticizes this as an 'ad hoc' hypothesis. The debate also touches upon the 'red balls' phenomenon, with Van Utrecht suggesting they could be tracer bullets or anti-collision lights from aircraft, a claim Meessen finds unsubstantiated.

Meessen also addresses Van Utrecht's dismissal of unexplained phenomena as explanations for other unexplained phenomena, arguing that while true, it's important to explore connections. He criticizes Van Utrecht's implicit rejection of extraterrestrial explanations for UFOs.

Further points of contention include the interpretation of witness testimony regarding the object's movement and stationary periods, and the alleged 'embellishment' of reports over time. Meessen defends the credibility of the witnesses, citing his own interviews and the independent confirmation from other researchers.

Van Utrecht's analysis of the 'red balls' phenomenon is further scrutinized. Meessen explains that an inversion of temperature would require witnesses to be at a similar altitude, which was not the case for the gendarmes. He also disputes Van Utrecht's explanation of the phenomenon as Venus reflecting light through atmospheric inversion, citing the lack of expected visual effects like vertical traces.

Meessen concludes that while some objects might be misidentified celestial bodies, Van Utrecht's approach is too restrictive, failing to acknowledge the unusual characteristics reported by witnesses.

Book Reviews

The issue features reviews of several relevant books:

• 'La rumeur de Roswell' by Pierre Lagrange: This book by sociologist Pierre Lagrange is presented as a significant contribution to the Roswell case, aiming to unravel the 'true secrets' and debunk false documents. However, the reviewer notes that Lagrange doesn't fully explain how the UFO crash narratives became modern legends. The review also mentions that other researchers disagree with Lagrange's perspective, and Inforespace plans to revisit the topic in a future issue.

• 'Science interdite, verbatim de l'ufologie!' by Jacques Vallée: This is the French translation of Vallée's journal from 1957 to 1969. It covers the early days of serious UFO research in France and the US, including encounters with key figures like Aimé Michel and Allen Hynek, famous cases, and the Condon Report. The book is described as a reference for the history of ufology, highlighting both successes and failures, and includes a previously secret US Army document.

• 'Vague d'OVNI sur la Belgique' (Volumes 1 & 2) by SOBEPS: These two comprehensive dossiers on the Belgian UFO wave (1989-1991) are presented as essential reading. Volume 1 details the events day by day, media coverage, radar data analysis, and scientific reactions. Volume 2 focuses on specific cases, the characteristics of the phenomena, the Petit-Rechain photograph, and scientific and political responses. The reviews emphasize the thoroughness of the research and the attempt to approach ufology scientifically.

Other Sections

• L'évolution du dialogue: Meessen reflects on the dialogue with Bonabot and Van Utrecht, noting that while it was civil, it ultimately failed to resolve the core disagreements. He suggests that the differing conceptions of 'research'—one seeking truth, the other seeking arguments for a preconceived thesis—are at the root of the dissensions.

• Informations complémentaires: This section provides additional details and clarifications related to the ongoing debate, including the author's personal respect for Bonabot's apology and further analysis of witness testimonies.

• Secretariat - Bibliothèque: Information on accessing the SOBEPS library and contacting the secretariat.

• Les diapositives de la SOBEPS: A collection of slides on UFO phenomena is offered for sale.

• Guides de l'enquêteur et de l'observateur: Descriptions of guides available from SOBEPS for UFO investigators and observers, covering topics like interviewing, estimating altitudes, and astronomical data.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical analysis of UFO sightings, the debate between conventional and unconventional explanations (particularly the Venus hypothesis), and the importance of rigorous scientific methodology in ufology. The editorial stance, as represented by Meessen, advocates for an open-minded, objective approach to research, acknowledging the limitations of current explanations and the need to explore all possibilities, including those that challenge established scientific paradigms. The issue also highlights the role of SOBEPS as a dedicated organization for UFO research in Belgium, providing resources and fostering discussion.