Inforespace - No 96 - 1998

Magazine Overview

Title: inforespace
Issue: n° 96
Date: May 1998
Volume: 27th year
Publisher: Société Belge d'Etude des Phénomènes Spatiaux (SOBEPS)
Country: Belgium
Language: French

This issue of *inforespace* delves into ufology and space phenomena, featuring a prominent editorial by Michel Bougard, President of SOBEPS, announcing the award of the 1998 Exopsychology Prize to the organization. The editorial highlights SOBEPS's extensive research and contributions to the field since 1971, acknowledging the support from various institutions and individuals. It also commemorates the passing of three long-time collaborators: Anne Tulkens, Isidore Van Hove, and Maurice de San, noting de San's particular interest in the Tunguska event.

The issue revisits the events of November 5, 1990, a significant wave of UFO sightings in France, arguing for the continued importance of analyzing past cases to improve current investigations. The article "Autopsie d'un phénomène polymorphe et ubiquiste" by Jean Sider provides a detailed examination of this event, challenging the official explanation of a Soviet rocket reentry.

Editorial

Michel Bougard's editorial expresses surprise and gratitude for SOBEPS receiving the 1998 Exopsychology Prize, awarded by the Dr. A. Hedri-Stiftung für Exopsychologie und Epipsychologie. He recounts receiving the prize in Bern and details the justification, which praises SOBEPS's scientific research, its impact through publications like "La vague belge," and its dedicated work since 1971. He thanks the foundation and its administrators, Drs. Locher and Rüetschi. The editorial also marks the sad passing of three SOBEPS collaborators: Anne Tulkens, Isidore Van Hove (a founding member), and Maurice de San. De San's research into the Tunguska event of 1908, which he theorized was caused by an extraterrestrial craft, is specifically mentioned. Bougard concludes by emphasizing the ongoing relevance of analyzing past UFO events, such as the November 5, 1990 wave, for the development of ufological inquiry.

Articles and Features

Autopsie d'un phénomène polymorphe et ubiquiste (Jean Sider)

Jean Sider, a retired railway restorer with a long-standing interest in UFOs since a military experience in 1954, presents an in-depth analysis of the November 5, 1990, aerial phenomena wave in France. He critiques the initial media reports, particularly the suggestion of a meteorite, and questions the credibility of the Observatory of Munich as a source. Sider focuses on the role of SEPRA (Service d'Expertise des Phénomènes Aériens Non-identifiés) and its predecessor GEPAN, suggesting that SEPRA, under the influence of political considerations, acts more as a public relations front than a genuine research body. He highlights that SEPRA's data, collected from gendarmeries, is largely inaccessible to private researchers, implying a form of censorship.

Sider contrasts the official explanation of a Soviet rocket reentry with the characteristics of the observed phenomena, which he describes as polymorphous and ubiquitous. He notes the wide geographical distribution, varied descriptions, low altitudes, diverse colors and shapes of lights, and the presence of complex structures. He argues that these features are incompatible with a simple rocket reentry and point towards a more complex, perhaps non-conventional, explanation.

The article also discusses the state of private UFO research in France, lamenting the decline of organized groups and the prevalence of dilettantism and infighting among researchers. Sider praises the work of individuals like Franck Marie and the journal *Lumières Dans La Nuit* (LDLN) for their efforts in collecting and preserving UFO data.

Rocket or not Rocket?

This section critically examines the official explanation of the November 5, 1990, sightings as a reentry of a Russian rocket. The author questions the NASA and NORAD statements, pointing out discrepancies and the fact that NASA is not responsible for tracking space debris. The NORAD data, while confirming a satellite reentry, provides coordinates that place the event near Bitche, France, suggesting that only Germans, not French citizens, would have seen it. Furthermore, information from a Russian ufologist suggests that Soviet rockets were designed to fall back into Soviet territory, making the French sightings unlikely to be from a Proton rocket.

The author argues that the characteristics of the observed phenomena—their polymorphous nature, varied descriptions, low altitudes, and unusual behaviors—are inconsistent with a rocket reentry. He criticizes debunkers for resorting to simplistic explanations and for dismissing witness testimonies without proper investigation. The section also details specific cases from Villavard and Gretz-Armainvilliers, highlighting unusual flight patterns and the presence of complex structures.

Other Investigations (Summarized)

This section briefly summarizes additional UFO sightings from November 5, 1990:

• Suresnes: A retired man and his son reported a dark mass passing low over rooftops, leaving a smoke trail. The witness's profession as a draughtsman lent credibility to his detailed description.
• Vert-le-Grand, Essonne: A witness reported a large, dark, monolithic mass with broken contours and no symmetrical architecture, observed at low altitude.
• Gretz-Armainvilliers, Seine-et-Marne: Multiple witnesses observed a large, dark, metallic object with multiple lights, including powerful beams directed towards the ground and powerful white lights. The object exhibited unusual maneuvers and disappeared abruptly.
• Villavard, Loir-et-Cher: A three-phase sighting involved an oval mass with a single red blinking light, followed by a larger object with multiple red lights, and finally a boomerang-shaped object with lights and trails.
• Gretz-Armainvilliers, Seine-et-Marne: A witness observed a large, dark, immobile mass with luminous beams cutting circles in the grass.
• Verzenay, Marne: A military officer and other personnel observed a massive black object with broken contours at very low altitude.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue include the critical examination of official explanations for UFO sightings, the challenges faced by independent ufological research, and the importance of detailed witness testimony. The editorial stance is clearly one of skepticism towards official narratives and a strong advocacy for rigorous, open investigation into anomalous aerial phenomena. The magazine champions the work of organizations like SOBEPS and LDLN, while critiquing government agencies and media for their handling of UFO information, often suggesting a deliberate effort to downplay or dismiss credible sightings.

This issue of Inforespace, published by SOBEPS in Belgium, focuses on the UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) wave of November 5, 1990, and related investigations. The publication delves into witness testimonies, official responses, and scientific analyses to understand the nature of these events.

Investigation into the November 5, 1990 UAP Wave

The article begins by detailing the author's attempts to gather information from various sources, including NASA, NORAD, and the Russian Embassy. While NASA and the Russian Embassy were unhelpful, NORAD, through Scott W. Johnson, provided crucial information. Initially, NORAD suggested the event might correspond to the re-entry of a SL-12 rocket's connecting element. The author sent detailed drawings of 160 cases from November 5, 1990, to NORAD.

Scott W. Johnson's response in a letter dated May 29, 1996, clarified that the observations did not correlate with typical space debris re-entries, which resemble meteors. He noted that the reported phenomena were significantly different from what is usually observed during re-entries, and that the provided sketches did not match such events. This effectively dismissed the initial hypothesis of a Russian rocket re-entry.

A subsequent letter from NORAD, responding to an inquiry about an object identified by SEPRA as the third stage of a Proton rocket (Gorizont 21), confirmed that the object was indeed a SL-12 rocket's connecting element that re-entered the atmosphere over Northern Europe on November 5, 1990. However, NORAD lacked precise data on the exact time and trajectory of the re-entry. This information contradicted the SEPRA's version, suggesting it was not a Proton rocket's third stage but a much smaller connecting element that fell outside French territory.

The author concludes that the November 5, 1990, events were not caused by a simple atmospheric re-entry but represented a wave of unknown phenomena. While not necessarily extraterrestrial, these phenomena might be subtle decoys. The limited number of witnesses in populated areas suggests a targeted effect rather than mass observation.

Analysis of Witness Testimonies

The issue presents a detailed analysis of witness testimonies, categorizing them and highlighting key characteristics. A significant observation is that the most detailed and 'anomalous' sightings were often reported later, while immediate reports tended to be confused with conventional aircraft or natural phenomena. The author proposes a 'law' stating that the retention time of a testimony is inversely proportional to its degree of strangeness.

Several specific cases are examined:

• October 18, 1990: A wave of sightings in Belgium, initially thought to be UAP, was later identified as likely an AWACS aircraft performing low-altitude maneuvers.
• November 5, 1990 (Belgium): Numerous sightings across Wallonia, characterized by intense luminous phenomena at low altitude. These were distinct from the October event in their widespread nature and shorter duration.

The article discusses the challenges of classifying UAP, noting that phenomena described as 'abnormal' are often rationalized. The author criticizes the tendency to attribute such events to conventional explanations like collective hallucinations, marsh gas, or aircraft (e.g., F-117A, Proton rocket), labeling it as 'state stupidity' serving obscurantism.

Specific Case Studies and Object Characteristics

Detailed descriptions of observed objects are provided, with many witnesses reporting triangular formations of lights. The shape of the objects is described as indistinct, triangular, parallelepipedal, or as simple points or balls. Colors ranged from white, orange, and yellow to pinkish, greenish, and bluish. Some witnesses noted behaviors like hovering, descending, and leaving luminous trails, often described as 'jets' or 'gerbs of sparks.'

Several witnesses reported the impression of a mass detaching from the sky or the absence of a distinct structure, with only luminous points visible. The 'subjective contour' phenomenon is discussed, where perceived shapes are created by differences in brightness or color, even without a physical outline.

Comparison with Other Events

The article draws parallels with other documented UAP cases:

• April 25, 1975: The re-entry of a US military satellite, where witness descriptions, while varied, shared common elements, illustrated by drawings.
• February 3, 1982: A luminous phenomenon observed over Belgium, characterized by a brief duration (4-10 seconds) and a separation into two pieces. Astronomers initially considered it a bolide or meteorite, but the lack of official reports of satellite re-entries made this explanation less likely.
• July 12, 1983: The test firing of a French M4 ballistic missile off the coast of Brittany, which was observed and photographed, allowing for comparison with witness accounts.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout the issue is the critical examination of UAP reports, contrasting witness testimonies with scientific explanations and official data. The editorial stance is one of rigorous investigation, seeking rational explanations while acknowledging the existence of unexplained phenomena. The publication emphasizes the importance of detailed witness accounts and the challenges of distinguishing genuine anomalies from misidentifications or natural events. There is a clear skepticism towards simplistic rationalizations and a call for a more open-minded yet scientifically grounded approach to UAP research.

This issue of "Lumières Dans La Nuit" (Lights in the Night), specifically issue number 308 from 1991, focuses on a detailed statistical and analytical examination of aerial phenomena, particularly the events of November 5, 1990. The publication, originating from Belgium and published by SOBEPS, aims to provide a rigorous approach to ufology, emphasizing critical analysis and the scientific method.

Analysis of the November 5, 1990 Event

The core of the issue is dedicated to dissecting the numerous eyewitness accounts of aerial phenomena that occurred on November 5, 1990. The magazine presents a comparative analysis of information, highlighting that while some data is divergent, the majority of reports are concentrated geographically within a triangle formed by Tournai, Charleroi, and Brussels. The article meticulously examines the proposed trajectories of the phenomena, with a probable axis from Royan to Nuremberg, and calculates the angular height at which these objects would have been observed. It notes that many witnesses described the phenomena as being low on the horizon or close to trees, consistent with the expected observation of re-entering debris.

Statistical data is presented, including a map of witness reports and tables detailing the direction, duration, altitude, and estimated distance of the observed phenomena. The analysis indicates that a significant majority of witnesses reported a general movement from southwest to northeast. The speed was predominantly described as 'slow,' with a few instances of 'fast' movement or objects being 'immobile.' The timing of the observations is also analyzed, showing a concentration of reports between 19:00 and 19:05, aligning with the expected time of atmospheric re-entry.

Distinguishing Phenomena: Debris vs. UFOs

A significant portion of the article is dedicated to differentiating between the re-entry of terrestrial debris and genuine unidentified flying objects (UFOs). The authors argue that the characteristics of the November 5, 1990 event, such as the widespread reporting, precise timing, and specific trajectories, strongly support the debris hypothesis. They critique the tendency of some ufologists to immediately label such events as UFOs without thorough investigation.

Epistemological and Psychological Considerations

The magazine delves into the philosophical and psychological aspects of perception and reality. It discusses how individual experiences, beliefs, and even linguistic frameworks can influence how an observer interprets an event. The concept of 'Gestalt' psychology is introduced, explaining how the human mind organizes sensory information into coherent patterns. The article explores the idea that 'reality' is often a social construct, and that what is perceived as real can be subjective and context-dependent. This section draws on the works of philosophers and psychologists like Kant, Watzlawick, Arnheim, and Koffka to underscore the complexity of observation and interpretation.

Critiques of Ufology and Official Responses

The issue also addresses the ufological community's reactions to the analysis of the November 5, 1990 event. It recounts criticisms from French ufologists who felt the SOBEPS's interpretation was too quick to dismiss UFO possibilities and favored an 'official explanation.' The authors defend their approach, emphasizing the need for rigorous investigation and the principle of favoring the most plausible explanation, which in this case is atmospheric re-entry. They also touch upon the challenges of obtaining clear information from official sources like NORAD, suggesting that apparent confusion might stem from inexperience or lack of interest rather than a deliberate cover-up.

Categorization of Aerial Events

To further clarify the analysis, the article proposes three categories for aerial events: Type 1 (astronomical or technological phenomena leading to misidentifications), Type 2 (spectacular high-altitude phenomena like meteors or rocket re-entries), and Type 3 (complex, evolving phenomena that are difficult to explain and are often considered genuine UFOs). The November 5, 1990 event is primarily placed in Type 2.

Conclusion

The issue concludes by reiterating the strong evidence supporting the atmospheric re-entry explanation for the November 5, 1990 events. It calls for a more critical and scientific approach within ufology, urging investigators to thoroughly examine all possible conventional explanations before concluding an event is truly unidentified. The magazine emphasizes that a rigorous methodology is crucial for maintaining the credibility of ufological research.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue include the critical analysis of eyewitness testimony, the statistical examination of aerial phenomena, the distinction between natural and anomalous events, and the philosophical underpinnings of perception and reality. The editorial stance is clearly in favor of a scientific, evidence-based approach to ufology, prioritizing rational explanations and cautioning against premature conclusions of UFO sightings. The publication aims to educate its readers on how to critically evaluate reports and understand the psychological and epistemological factors that influence interpretation.

This issue of Inforespace, published by SOBEPS, focuses on the UFO wave that occurred in Belgium and surrounding areas from autumn 1989 to summer 1991, with a particular emphasis on the events of November 5, 1990. The magazine presents itself as a serious, rational approach to ufology, distinct from sensationalism and blind enthusiasm.

The November 5, 1990 Event: A Case Study

The issue dedicates significant attention to the events of November 5, 1990, which generated numerous reactions across Europe. The object observed was described as a large, silent, triangular craft with luminous extremities. The investigation, led by CNES/SEPRA and supported by SOBEPS, aimed to provide a clear and effective set of criteria to distinguish between different types of aerial phenomena. The magazine highlights the challenges of this 'serious ufology,' which requires calming blind enthusiasm and persevering in information gathering to convince and open eyes.

The event was initially met with widespread confusion and speculation. The article "REVENIR AU 5 NOVEMBRE 1990" details how the phenomenon was observed across France, Belgium, and Germany. Hundreds of testimonies were collected by CNES/SEPRA, describing a triangular object with luminous vertices and immense size, moving silently. Initial hypotheses considered aircraft in formation or the re-entry of a natural or artificial object into the atmosphere.

Scientific Investigation and Official Explanation

Approximately 48 hours after the initial request for information, NASA confirmed that the phenomenon was the re-entry of an artificial space object, specifically the third stage of a PROTON rocket (immatriculation 20925/1990/94C). The re-entry was scheduled for around November 5th, 18:06, with a theoretical impact point north-east of France. Radar data from USSPACECOM corroborated the object's passage at the indicated times. The disintegration of the object occurred between 110 and 80 km altitude, causing bright yellow and white glows due to the extreme temperatures generated by atmospheric friction. The late hour, clear sky, and exceptional purity of the atmosphere contributed to the quality of observation.

Media Influence and Public Perception

The issue critically examines the role of the media in shaping public perception. Press agencies disseminated contradictory information, fueling doubt. For instance, an AFP dispatch from Munich reported that the city's astronomical observatory confirmed a meteorite re-entry, a claim later found to be false as the observatory did not exist. This misinformation contributed to the sensationalism surrounding the event.

Interviews with pilots, such as Jean GRELE, who stated the observation was incompatible with the NASA trajectory, and media appearances, like that of actor Alain Delon on the "7/7" program, further confused the debate by linking UFOs to extraterrestrials. The article "Pourquoi autant de personnes et d'observateurs en toute bonne foi ont-ils fait une telle erreur de jugement" suggests two main reasons for misinterpretation: poor visual perception of the phenomenon (inability to accurately assess distance, dimension, speed, and duration due to lack of reference points) and incorrect interpretation due to the lack of analogy with known phenomena, especially given the silent, cloudless sky.

SOBEPS and its Publications

The magazine also provides information about SOBEPS, an association dedicated to the rational study of UFO phenomena. It details their publications, including "VAGUE D'OVNI SUR LA BELGIQUE" (two volumes), which offer extensive case reports, analyses, and historical context of UFO sightings in Belgium. The first volume, "UN DOSSIER EXCEPTIONNEL," covers the period from autumn 1989 to summer 1991, including historical events, media coverage, photographic and video analysis, radar data, and European study projects. The second volume, "UNE ENIGME NON RESOLUE," published in 1994, presents new challenges and discusses the political and scientific implications of their findings.

SOBEPS offers resources for both investigators and observers, including guides on UFO investigation techniques, astronomical data, and methods for assessing credibility. The association emphasizes its commitment to objective analysis and encourages collaboration from members and the public in reporting unusual aerial phenomena.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the scientific investigation of UFO phenomena, the critical analysis of witness testimonies, the impact of media coverage on public understanding, and the importance of distinguishing between genuine anomalies and misinterpretations or known phenomena like re-entering space debris. SOBEPS positions itself as a proponent of a rigorous, rational, and evidence-based approach to ufology, aiming to separate the comprehensible and reasonable from speculation and belief.