Inforespace - No 99 - 1999

Magazine Overview

Title: Inforespace
Issue: No. 99
Date: December 1999
Volume: 28th year
Publisher: Société Belge d'Etude des Phénomènes Spatiaux, asbl (SOBEPS)
Country: Belgium
Language: French

This issue of Inforespace, a Belgian ufology magazine, prominently features an in-depth analysis and discussion of the COMETA report, a French document concerning UFOs and national defense. The magazine aims to provide its readers with a comprehensive understanding of this significant report and its implications.

Editorial

The editorial reflects on the common experience of UFO-related conferences and the potential for deeper engagement with the subject. It highlights the formation of the COMETA committee in France, initiated by General Denis Letty and supported by General Bernard Norlain, as a significant development. The editorial notes that the COMETA report was made public through a special issue of VSD magazine, which was distributed in France, prompting Inforespace to publish analyses for its Belgian readership.

The editorial also touches upon the current state of SOBEPS's investigation network, which is temporarily on hold. It emphasizes that the testimonies presented in the magazine are raw facts without official conclusions from SOBEPS, serving to illustrate the persistence and evolving typology of UFO phenomena. The editorial concludes by wishing readers sincere wishes for the new year and looking forward to the 100th issue of Inforespace, a milestone that will be accompanied by a comprehensive index of articles published over the past thirty years.

The COMETA Report: "UFOs and Defense - What Should We Prepare For?"

This section delves into the COMETA report, which was submitted to French President Jacques Chirac and Prime Minister Lionel Jospin. The report was compiled by the COMETA association, a support group for IHEDN (Institut des Hautes Etudes de la Défense Nationale), comprising retired generals and polytechnicians.

First Part: The report begins with a presentation of General Bernard Norlain and recalls a 1976 committee that explored UFOs, which led to the creation of GEPAN (later SEPRA) within CNES. It then presents eight well-known UFO observation cases, including military and civilian pilot testimonies, and seven classic ground observation incidents, such as the Valensole and Cussac encounters. It also details two famous landing incidents in Trans-en-Provence and Nancy, noting abnormal environmental disturbances. This part concludes by mentioning two cases of confusion, suggesting that witnesses can sometimes be mistaken.

Second Part: This part focuses on the organization of official UFO research in France, primarily at CNES (GEPAN/SEPRA). It highlights the French Air Force's declassified letter from General Nathan F. Twining in 1947, which affirmed the material reality of UFOs. The report suggests that some unidentified aerial phenomena (PAN D) might be unknown flying machines with exceptional performance guided by an artificial intelligence. It also explores various hypotheses for the origin of UFOs, including secret weapons, Cold War disinformation, holographic phenomena, natural events, and extraterrestrial origins.

Third Part: This section is dedicated to hypotheses and modeling. It discusses the unusual characteristics of UFOs, such as silent movement and the ability to stop nearby vehicle engines. The propulsion of UFOs is explored, with Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) being a favored hypothesis, possibly influenced by ONERA's research. The report also considers other possibilities, including extraterrestrial origins and the idea of descendants of ancient astronauts. It mentions the work of Colonel Philip J. Corso and the Roswell incident, suggesting it might have been a "programmed accident."

Fourth Part: This part addresses the issue of UFOs in the context of defense. While French military personnel have not observed any direct threat, the report implies that American colleagues might have more information. It discusses strategic perspectives on UFOs, posing questions about the occupants' intentions and how to respond to potential intrusions. The report categorizes countries based on their interactions with extraterrestrial civilizations, with the last category being those that have established relations or collaborations.

Annexes: The annexes focus on the Roswell incident and the US government's disinformation policy. It suggests that the extraterrestrial origin hypothesis was considered by COMETA experts, possibly based on information from reliable sources. A key question raised is whether the Roswell crash was an accident or a deliberate message. The annexes criticize the US Air Force's role in disinformation and also point to the French government's involvement in downplaying UFO phenomena through various scientists and media outlets.

Conclusion: The report, despite minor errors, is seen as a significant document that gives UFO phenomena a new dimension, particularly in their perception by retired defense experts. Its public release is considered unprecedented, even compared to US efforts.

Article: "OVNI soit qui mal y pense" by Pierre Lagrange

This article, originally published in the French newspaper Libération, critiques the COMETA report as a form of disinformation that ridicules the UFO subject. Lagrange, a sociologist and author on UFOs, argues that the report, while presenting some factual observations, veers into speculative territory regarding extraterrestrial contact and technological benefits from Roswell. He criticizes the report for ignoring private research and for its perceived attempt to control the narrative by focusing on military and defense aspects.

Lagrange challenges common misconceptions about UFOs, arguing that witnesses are not irrational but interpret what they see based on their cultural context. He criticizes the scientific community's tendency to dismiss UFOs and highlights the work of private researchers and organizations like SOBEPS for their rigorous approach. He also points out the discrepancy in the 'unidentified' rates between SEPRA and historical data from the US Air Force's Blue Book project, suggesting a deliberate downplaying of the phenomenon.

Article: "Questions aux rédacteurs du rapport COMETA"

This piece poses several questions to the authors of the COMETA report, aiming to clarify its objectives, methodology, and implications. The questions cover:

1. The constitution of COMETA: Motivations for its creation, selection criteria for members, and the relationship with IHEDN.
2. Objectives of the study: Whether COMETA aims to create a framework for UFO study or actively participate in research, and its relationship with SEPRA.
3. The study of UFO phenomena: How the report accounts for private research, its approach to data collection, and its view on the relationship between observations and theoretical reflection.
4. The Roswell incident: The report's stance on the incident and the proposed diplomatic actions.

Article: "Pourquoi ils ne s'approchent pas trop près."

This article, by Auguste Meessen, a professor at the Catholic University of Louvain, analyzes the COMETA report from a scientific and academic perspective. Meessen questions the report's focus on defense and its potential to be perceived as arrogant for overlooking private research. He emphasizes the need to consider all observations, regardless of the source, and suggests that the COMETA report's approach to data collection and analysis needs further clarification.

Meessen also discusses the broader implications of UFO phenomena, suggesting they might be a manifestation of paranormal phenomena and that a unified intelligence could be behind them. He critiques the military-minded approach of COMETA, which tends to view UFOs as potential extraterrestrial intrusions, contrasting it with the more nuanced understanding developed by many ufologists.

Article: "Roswell: la magouille du cluster-balloons Mogul."

This article likely addresses the Roswell incident, potentially debunking or re-examining the official explanations, such as the 'cluster-balloons Mogul' theory, and contrasting them with the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

Article: "Retour au 11 décembre 1989..."

This article likely revisits a specific UFO event or period, possibly related to the 'Belgian wave' of UFO sightings that occurred around December 1989.

Article: "Un triangle d'avant la « vague belge »."

This article likely describes a triangular UFO sighting that predates the 'Belgian wave' of UFO phenomena.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue of Inforespace revolve around the COMETA report, its implications for UFO research and national defense, and the broader context of ufology. The magazine's stance, as reflected in the articles by Lagrange and Meessen, is to critically examine official reports, acknowledge the contributions of private researchers, and encourage a more open and scientific approach to the study of UFO phenomena. There is a clear emphasis on challenging established rationalist viewpoints and advocating for a deeper understanding of the complex nature of UFO sightings and their potential implications for humanity. The editorial also highlights the importance of international collaboration and the need to move beyond simplistic explanations or dismissals of the subject.

This issue of "Inforespace" (issue 98, dated June 1999) features a cover story titled "Pourquoi ils ne s'approchent pas trop près" (Why They Don't Get Too Close), which delves into the complexities of UFO sightings and official explanations. The article, written by Pierre Lagrange and introduced by M.B., critically examines the Roswell incident and the subsequent debunking efforts, particularly focusing on the US Air Force's "Mogul project" explanation.

The Roswell Incident and the Mogul Project

The article begins by introducing Pierre Lagrange as a thoughtful ufologist who aims to improve the scientific approach to UFO research, rather than simply debunking. It then discusses the recurring summer revelations about UFOs, referencing events like the 1994 US military report on Roswell and the 1995 autopsy film.

The core of the article focuses on the 1997 US Air Force report, financed by Laurence Rockefeller, which proposed that the Roswell crash debris was from a "cluster-balloon" of the secret Mogul program. This program was allegedly designed to detect Soviet nuclear explosions. The author, however, labels this explanation as a "monument of disinformation" that shows contempt for the witnesses.

Critiquing the Cluster-Balloon Explanation

The author systematically dismantles the cluster-balloon theory. He points out that the official explanation, first presented by General Roger M. Ramey in 1947 with a torn weather balloon, was already a fabrication. The cluster-balloon explanation, attributed to Colonel Richard L. Weaver, is presented as a later cover-up.

• Key arguments against the Mogul explanation include:
• Material Identification: The materials of the Mogul cluster-balloons (neoprene envelopes, silk parachutes, nylon cables, bakelite batteries, balsa wood, aluminum reflectors) were ordinary and easily identifiable, not possessing any strange properties.
• Secrecy: The Mogul program itself was secret, but the cluster-balloons used were not. They were known to the military and used in scientific research by various organizations, including universities.
• Lancer Number 4: The Pentagon's explanation hinges on "lancer number 4" from June 4th, 1947. However, the author argues this specific launch was from New York University, not part of the Mogul program, and was a meteorological test, not equipped with radar reflectors.
• Reflector Discrepancies: The article highlights that radar reflectors were removed from Mogul balloons after launch number 4 because they were ineffective. Yet, the Pentagon's 1997 report depicts reflectors on the balloons, and the drawing of "lancer number 2" is presented as a fabrication where the reflectors are disproportionately large compared to the balloons.
• Charles Moore's Testimony: Engineer Charles Moore's statements are presented as contradictory. Initially, in 1990, he stated that Roswell debris could not be from any known balloon. Later, under pressure, he supported the Mogul explanation, but his accounts of the program's secrecy and the specifics of the launches (like the absence of "lancer number 9") are questioned.
• Witnesses and Debunkers: The author criticizes debunkers like Philip J. Klass and Karl T. Pflock, suggesting their explanations are part of a coordinated effort to dismiss the Roswell incident. He notes that Pflock's brochure, while defending the Mogul theory, inadvertently contains information that undermines it.

The Role of the Media and Authorities

The article criticizes the American press of July 1947 for its "servile" behavior, readily accepting the official explanations without critical examination. It highlights how the Air Force actively manipulated information, including pressuring witness William Brazel to alter his testimony about when he found the debris.

The Belgian UFO Wave of 1989

Shifting focus, the article recounts a significant UFO sighting from December 11, 1989, during the "Belgian wave." A witness, Mme A. v. P., along with her family, observed a large, dark, triangular object with a distinct shape, moving slowly at low altitude with a faint humming sound. The object had three large white lights on its underside and smaller red lights at the rear. The witness described it as impressive and metallic, appearing larger than a football field when directly overhead. The observation lasted about a minute. The author notes that many such sightings from this period were never reported, and this testimony is consistent with other reports from the same wave in nearby locations.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue strongly criticizes official government explanations for UFO phenomena, particularly the Roswell incident. It posits that authorities have engaged in systematic disinformation campaigns to conceal the true nature of these events. The article champions the importance of witness testimony and criticizes the dismissive attitude of "debunkers" and mainstream science. The editorial stance is clearly pro-investigation into UFOs, viewing them as a serious phenomenon that warrants scientific inquiry, free from preconceived notions and official narratives. The article emphasizes the need to trust credible witnesses and to critically analyze official reports, which are often seen as attempts to mislead the public.

This issue of "Vague d'OVNI sur la Belgique" (Belgian UFO Wave) is presented as an exceptional dossier compiled by the SOBEPS (Société Belge d'Étude des Phénomènes Aériens Spatiaux), a non-profit association dedicated to the rational observation and study of unidentified aerial phenomena. The magazine details the significant UFO wave that occurred in Belgium from autumn 1989 to summer 1991.

Dossier 1: UN DOSSIER EXCEPTIONNEL

This section introduces the comprehensive dossier on the Belgian UFO wave, which took two years to compile. It highlights the book's contents, including:

• A preface by Jean-Pierre Petit, Director of Research at the CNRS.
• A day-by-day historical account of the events and a description of the best investigated cases.
• An overview of the wave's media coverage, including press excerpts and TV/radio broadcasts.
• Analyses of photographic and video evidence.
• Collaboration with the Air Force and Gendarmerie for radar data analysis.
• The evolution of interest from officials and scientists, including a European-level study project.
• A review of other triangular UFO sightings abroad, with a particular focus on the American wave of 1983-84.
• A discussion on "Stealth" technology to debunk certain theories.
• Statistical analyses of the wave.
• Personal conclusions from the authors.
• A postface by General Wilfried De Brouwer of the Air Force.

The book is described as 504 pages long, containing numerous unpublished cases and over 200 illustrations, including color photos. It is presented as an essential resource for understanding the phenomenon.

Dossier 2: UNE ENIGME NON RESOLUE

This section details SOBEPS's second activity report on the Belgian wave, published in 1994. It addresses the challenges posed to the political and scientific world by tens of thousands of investigation reports. Key elements include:

• A preface by Isabelle Stengers, exploring why the wave constitutes an "anomaly."
• A history of observations and significant cases that emerged after the first SOBEPS report.
• Details on the wave's remarkable characteristics: flight patterns, structural details, and physical effects.
• A complete analysis of the Petit-Rechain photograph.
• Coverage of daytime sightings, particularly those on the afternoon of November 29, 1989, preceding the main wave.
• Reactions from the scientific community, press commentary, and media interest.
• A comparison of how testimonies evolved based on media influence.
• Methods for undertaking new research based on available observations and analyses.
• An examination of meteorological disturbances and radar data, hypothesizing about the night of March 30-31, 1990 (F-16 radars).
• Prospects for scientific ufology and appropriate methodologies.
• The implications of ufological research for democracy and political actions by SOBEPS at national and European levels.

These two volumes are presented as inseparable and are offered together for 1,500 FB (275 FF), with separate purchase options available. Payment details and ordering instructions are provided.

Witness Testimony: Pascal L.

A personal account from M. Pascal L. describes an observation made in the region of Nancy, France, in the night of July 12-13, 1978, around midnight. While stargazing from his balcony, all the streetlights in his town, Clairlieu, suddenly went out. Simultaneously, numerous dogs began to bark intensely. He then witnessed two enormous, silent, triangular objects with a mat metal color and an opaque white circle in the center appear in the sky. The objects flew slowly, without any sound, then merged into a single, larger object that hovered briefly before accelerating at extreme speed, comparable to a shooting star, and disappearing behind the nearby forest.

Confirmation and Context

The following Sunday, an article in "L'Est Républicain" reported similar triangular UFO sightings by other witnesses in Alsace, describing the same characteristics: shape, color, central circle, and silence. This provided the witness with confirmation that he had not imagined the event. He later learned from a military officer involved in UFO investigations that this observation, made in 1978, predated the main Belgian UFO wave by nearly ten years, yet shared striking similarities.

The witness expresses his satisfaction in finding confirmation and notes that the experience was shared by people kilometers away. He also addresses common explanations for UFO sightings, such as stealth aircraft (F-117), questioning their relevance in 1978.

The magazine includes drawings submitted by the witness, Monsieur Pascal L., illustrating the phenomenon he observed.

SOBEPS Activities and Resources

The magazine outlines the mission of SOBEPS as a non-profit organization focused on the rational study of unidentified aerial phenomena, free from religious or political affiliations. Their activities include investigations, information dissemination through a semi-annual review ("Inforespace"), conferences, and debates. They emphasize volunteer contributions and seek collaboration from members for various tasks like translation, writing, and investigations.

SOBEPS also offers access to its library and documentation on Saturdays between 2 PM and 6 PM, requiring an appointment. Contact numbers are provided for administrative inquiries (02/521.74.04) and for reporting testimonies (02/524.28.48, with a 24-hour answering machine).

A collection of 360 slides on UFO phenomena is available, divided into 30 series of 12 documents, with commentary. Two special series are dedicated to the Belgian wave (750 FB for 24 slides).

Two guides are also offered: "Le guide de l'enquêteur" (The Investigator's Guide), containing 200 questions for UFO observations, altitude estimation techniques, and report writing, and "Le guide de l'observateur" (The Observer's Guide), covering astronomical data, possible confusions with celestial bodies, and essential astronomy notions for ufologists. These guides can be purchased separately for 250 FB each (60 FF) or 350 FB for foreign members. Orders should be sent to SOBEPS, with payment details specified.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the detailed investigation and documentation of the 1989-1991 Belgian UFO wave, emphasizing a rational and scientific approach. The editorial stance is one of open inquiry, seeking to understand anomalous aerial phenomena through rigorous investigation, data analysis, and witness testimony. The magazine highlights the importance of collaboration, both among members and with official bodies like the Air Force and Gendarmerie. It also addresses common explanations and debunks simplistic theories, advocating for a deeper understanding of the subject. The inclusion of a personal testimony from 1978, predating the main wave but sharing similar characteristics, underscores the long-standing nature of such phenomena and the magazine's commitment to presenting a comprehensive historical perspective.