Lettre d'Information Ufologique - Vol 3 No 2 - dec 1991

Magazine Overview

This issue of *Lettre d'Information Ufologique* (LIUFO), Volume 3, Number 2, dated December 1991, serves as a communication platform for ufologists worldwide. The editor expresses the desire to openly share information with amateur researchers globally and highlights the creation of computerized UFO report files. This particular issue focuses on two such files: BECASSINE, developed by Denys Breysse, and a file associated with Eric Maillot, referred to as 'LA LUNE'. The publication also touches upon the relationship between CASUFO and MUFON's files, mentioning a future LIUFO issue dedicated to this topic. Additionally, it notes the existence of an Italian file and other similar tools like UNICAT. The editor also acknowledges that Jean Vézina's opinion, published in a previous LIUFO issue, did not meet with universal agreement, as indicated by received correspondence.

BECASSINE: A UFO Database

Marc Leduc's article introduces BECASSINE, a computer file created by Denys Breysse that compiles UFO reports and 'ovi' (unidentified aerial phenomena) classified as RR3 and RR4, based on a modification of the Hynek classification. The article compares BECASSINE with CASUFO, another UFO database, noting their similarities and differences through two tables.

Table 1: General Comparison

Purpose: Both CASUFO and BECASSINE aim to gather and codify UFO reports for analysis and collaborative research. BECASSINE's purpose is described as very similar to CASUFO's.

Content: CASUFO codifies all available reports within the context of UFO sightings. BECASSINE's content is similar but concentrates on reports involving entities and humanoids.

Region: CASUFO's reports primarily originate from Quebec, with few exceptions. BECASSINE, however, includes reports from around the world.

Fields: CASUFO selects fields to describe UFO characteristics and establish links between reports and known classifications. BECASSINE's description fields are similar, but it does not seem to systematically use globally recognized classifications.

The article states that the main differences lie in the data fields, with BECASSINE and CASUFO having different orientations despite similar corpora.

Table 2: Specific Comparisons

• Unique Fields in BECASSINE (No Correspondence in CASUFO):
• Profession
• Activity at the start of the observation
• Attention attraction
• Witness/entity attitude
• Dimension
• Distance from witness
• Country

Commentary on BECASSINE's Unique Fields: CASUFO rarely mentions profession. It includes data related to activity, attitude, and attention attraction within its 'description' field. Similarly, the 'dimension' field in CASUFO is often covered by its description field, or by Leduc's field, which is based on phenomenon proximity.

• Unique Fields in CASUFO (No Correspondence in BECASSINE):
• Explanatory hypotheses
• Origin references
• Available documentation
• Description, brief summary
• Miscellaneous, details
• Material collected
• Proximity, details
• Similar cases worldwide
• Season
• Day of the week
• HAE (Heure Avancée de l'Est)

Commentary on Field Differences: BECASSINE appears to contain information related to explanatory hypotheses, references, and documentation, possibly using coincidences (like a dog barking) which CASUFO categorizes under 'miscellaneous'. The CASUFO fields mentioned above do not seem to have a direct correspondence in BECASSINE.

Common Fields: Both databases share numerous fields, including Year, Month, Day, Hour, Duration, Number of witnesses, Sex/Gender, Age, Number of UFOs, Noise, Type of beings, Traces, Region/Location, and Site.

Commentary on Common Fields: While sometimes titled differently, these fields are generally unambiguous in both BECASSINE and CASUFO. However, the method of codifying the information can differ significantly. CASUFO uses computer-treatable abbreviations and codes for calculation, compilation, and statistics, allowing for reader comprehension without interpretation tables. BECASSINE, in contrast, seems to use more hermetic coded systems.

• Fields with Related Information: Both BECASSINE and CASUFO have fields related to:
• Information index (e.g., synthesis rating of strangeness/credibility, Hynek strangeness/credibility, Vallée's SVP)
• Type (e.g., Hynek classification, Musgrave, Webb, Zurcher, Vallée 1966, Vallée 1990, Leduc classifications)
• Witness name and association
• Altitude (Leduc classification, description)
• Activity (Musgrave classification, description)
• Entity/UFO association (Probable cause, Zoology)
• Size (Manoeuvre)
• Witness/being attitude (Form, structure)
• Color (Appearance)
• Mode of appearance/disappearance (Appearance)
• Speed, Evolutions, Mode of displacement (Movement)
• Luminosity and effects on witness, animals, and equipment (Effect)

Commentary on Related Fields: The fields in BECASSINE often contain information that CASUFO also covers, albeit sometimes in a different manner. The article suggests that both files allow for the extraction of report samples based on chosen data. The author notes that these tables are cumbersome for a regular letter but well-suited for the LIUFO format, and awaits further correspondence from Denys Breysse.

LA LUNE: Misidentifications with the Moon

Marc Leduc's second article, 'LA LUNE', investigates UFO reports that stem from misidentifications with the moon. Eric Maillot's work in this area is highlighted. The author presents a series of cases from CASUFO where sightings were initially reported as UFOs but are analyzed as potential moon misidentifications.

Case 1 (1952, Marieville): A stationary red-feu fireball, as large as the moon, was observed for 15 minutes. It was divided by a horizontal bar and closed like an eyelid before disappearing. The commentary suggests the witness may not have understood the play of clouds in front of the moon.

Case 2 (1952, Marieville): A similar report occurred at the same location and time, with the same commentary applied.

Case 3 (1969, Québec): A hospitalized patient observed a large orange ball, the apparent diameter of the full moon, balancing and moving up and down for over two hours. The commentary notes that significant movements could not be established and that lunar fluctuations should suffice to clarify this case.

Case 4 (1975, Berthier): A round luminous form, larger than the moon, with rotating red, blue, and green lights, was observed. The commentary questions why it would be considered anything other than the moon.

Case 5 (1974, Ste-Marcelline): A very bright sphere moved north and disappeared behind trees, appearing as large as the full moon. The commentary suggests the slow, descending movement might point to the moon, questioning if the moon was responsible.

Case 6 (1975, Lanoraie): A very bright light appeared at low altitude, approximately the size of the moon. The commentary again questions why it would be considered other than the moon.

Case 7 (1976, Montréal): A red luminous object shaped like a reclining crescent was seen descending and moving away. The commentary suggests the moon and cloud play could explain this, noting that the moon was identified to the witness during a phone call.

Case 8 (1976, St-Alexis-des-Monts): Several stars changed position; one took on the aspect of three distinct red and white lights in a triangular formation, descending to a low altitude (15 feet) at a distance of about 500 feet. It then moved away as observers approached. The commentary suggests a light approaching to within 150 feet, appearing phosphorescent, and then moving away in a spiral, taking on the appearance of the moon. The difficulty in this report lies in the reliability of the events, with witness memories possibly being intertwined. The part about the light departing and resembling the moon is considered reliable.

Case 9 (1977, St-Hubert): A luminous white ball, resembling the moon, was observed at 1000 feet distance, with a real size of 8 feet in diameter and 50 feet above the ground. The commentary suggests the young men may have been fooled by the moon and a sense of wonder.

Case 10 (1977, Laprairie): A large red-orange ball, the size of the moon, was seen about 300 feet away, 20 feet above a house, and disappeared quickly. The commentary notes the difficulty in reducing this phone-recorded testimony. The witness insists the ball was in front of the tree, which is the only strange aspect. If this point were erroneous, the rapid departure could be explained by clouds, and the moon would be considered again.

Case 11 (1978, Boucherville): A red ball similar to the moon was seen. The commentary questions why it wouldn't be the moon.

Case 12 (1978, Longueuil): People saw what they thought was the moon, but later became uncertain. The commentary explains that the moon often causes emotion in observers due to its brightness, apparent size near the horizon, contrast with the sky, and lack of reference points, leading to potential errors.

Case 13 (1978, Lac-des-Plages): A truck driver saw a large pink luminous ball, about 1.5 times the size of the moon, stationary at 50 degrees elevation above a lake. It turned off and then back on 20 minutes later. The commentary suggests that partially covered time might be responsible for the temporary disappearance, pointing to the moon.

Case 14 (1978, St-Laurent): Motorists saw a red fiery triangular luminous shape moving from the metropolitan boulevard westward. The sky was overcast. The shape moved and appeared to shrink as it moved away. The commentary questions if this is another case of shrinking due to clouds, giving the impression of distance.

Case 15 (1978, Montréal): A pale orange luminous object, resembling the moon, was seen about a foot above the houses, descending obliquely to the left, appearing slightly larger than the moon. The commentary states that the movement was not significantly different from the moon's and questions whether it was the witness's left or the object's left, noting that the moon descending towards the west is normal. This confusion was verified with the witness via phone.

Case 16 (1979, Beloeil): A white ball was observed moving from east to south, about 2/3 the diameter of the moon, disappearing behind clouds. The commentary notes that the strangeness lies solely in the displacement, suggesting that if it was an apparent movement caused by clouds, it would again be a misidentification of the moon.

Case 17 (1980, St-Joachim): A stationary, half-moon-shaped luminous glow, the apparent size of the setting sun, was seen. The witnesses and their children left the area. Through the windshield, the object appeared blurry, uniformly orange with red. It remained stationary. The commentary questions why it would be considered anything other than the moon.

Case 18 (1988, Fleurimont): A luminous white stationary ball, the size of the full moon, was observed. The witness noted that the moon was also clearly visible in the sky. The ball did not follow the movement of the stars. The tired observers went to sleep. The commentary suggests the natural hypothesis of a 'moon dog' (a type of atmospheric optical phenomenon) due to reverberation on ice crystals.

Case 19 (1985, Montréal-Nord): Motorists saw an object resembling the full moon, which they report accelerated and decelerated simultaneously with their automobile. The commentary suggests the motorists were victims of the relative movement of the moon, and that children often make this error, with the capacity to understand this phenomenon developing with maturity.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout the 'LA LUNE' section is the systematic analysis of UFO reports that bear resemblance to the moon. The editorial stance, as evidenced by the commentaries on each case, leans towards caution and favors natural explanations, particularly misidentification of the moon, atmospheric phenomena (like clouds or ice crystals), and optical illusions. The publication encourages critical analysis and data sharing among researchers, as demonstrated by the comparison of databases and the invitation for further correspondence.

Title: Lettre d'Information Ufologique
Issue: V.3, N.2
Date: December 1991
Publisher: LIUFO
Country: Canada
Language: French

This issue of the ufology newsletter focuses on a series of reported sightings, many of which involve phenomena observed in relation to the moon, and also addresses the phenomenon of crop circles.

Reported Sightings

The newsletter details several specific incidents:

• August 22, 1985, Laval: A bright red object was observed descending slowly for 15 minutes. The commentary notes uncertainty about the object's movement and apparent size, but suspects the moon's presence.
• April 14, 1987, Montreal: A luminous round shape was seen above buildings for 15 minutes. It was described as having a darker bar in the middle. The commentary suggests this bar might be a cloud obscuring the moon.
• November 19, 1988, Jonquière: For 5 minutes, people observed a very large circle around the moon that displayed the colors of the rainbow. This report was gathered following an appeal in a newspaper after an earthquake, in the context of research into EQL (presumably unexplained phenomena).
• November 25, 1988, Jonquière: A woman reported that the moon appeared to grow larger, changed from yellow to red, and then returned to its normal color after an earthquake. No commentary is provided for this case.
• November 26, 1988, St-Bruno, Lac St-Jean: Two walkers reported seeing a white ring around the moon for 1 minute. The commentary notes this testimony was collected similarly to the previous one and suggests that people can be easily impressed by unusual sights.
• January 18, 1989, Jonquière: For 5 minutes, walkers observed an unusual ring around the moon. The commentary indicates it was collected in the same manner as the preceding case.
• November 23, 1988, Chicoutimi-Nord: A person observed a large, well-defined, luminous circle that did not appear to be radiating, for 10 minutes. The witness did not recognize it as the moon. The commentary states this case was collected similarly to two previous ones, and the witness did not identify the moon.

Analysis of Lunar Mimicry Cases

The publication discusses the nature of these 26 reports, characterizing them as not particularly impressive in their strangeness. It suggests that altering a single detail could make each case easily understandable as a natural phenomenon. Cases involving the moon often exhibit characteristics such as slow movement, moon-like size, light colors (white, reddish, yellowish, orange), and are typically reported low on the horizon.

The article highlights the concept of 'lunar mimicry' (code M-LUN), which has been extensively discussed by author Pierre Viéroudy (pseudonym of Pierre Berthault) in his book "Ces ovni qui annoncent le surhomme." Viéroudy's descriptions are noted to sometimes resemble aircraft or parachutes. The author of the newsletter expresses skepticism, believing that mimicry cases more often hide misidentifications. However, the idea is acknowledged as fascinating and has been used in science fiction, citing Keith Laumer's "The Invaders."

Crop Circles

Regarding "Crop Circles," the newsletter mentions a recent television program suggesting they are elaborate pranks by a small group who eventually confessed. It is predicted that the phenomenon will quickly disappear, but the English police may become involved due to the potential anger of many farmers.

Correspondence and Opinions

The issue includes correspondence from readers, notably from Philippe de la Messuzière, who thanks the editor for his interest and occasional help. De la Messuzière comments on an opinion piece by Jean Vézina published in the previous LIUFO issue.

De la Messuzière criticizes Vézina's article as weak and poorly supported, stating that Vézina sometimes ridicules himself. He argues that Vézina's critique lacks substance, destroys without reason, and offers no proof. De la Messuzière expresses disappointment that the newsletter seems to endorse Vézina's views.

In contrast, de la Messuzière praises Stanton Friedman, whom he knows personally, describing him as someone who does not think like a "believer." He expresses surprise that Jean Vézina, an electronic engineer with military security clearance, seems unaware of the high-level scientific interest and significant expenditures by CERN (in Switzerland) on the UFO subject.

De la Messuzière recounts his own experience in 1976, examining 1,200 highly scientific UFO dossiers at the Centre d'Astronomie used by Dr. Tennyson on Dufferin Street in Canada. He states that Philippe Blaquière's work with 400 dossiers does not compare to Tennyson's. He also mentions that four countries (USA, England, France, and Russia) have ongoing contacts with extraterrestrials described as having a human aspect, a fact he learned from an engineer at the Pic-du-Midi Astronomical Observation Centre.

Another letter, from Philippe Blaquière, acknowledges receipt of the September 1991 LIUFO and congratulates Jean Vézina for his article, finding it very appropriate.

Subscription Information

The newsletter provides subscription details for LIUFO, stating it is published quarterly and contains at least eight pages. The subscription fee is $5, payable by check or money order to Marc Leduc, B.P. 955, Lac Beauport, Québec, Canada, G0A 200.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are UFO sightings, particularly those involving the moon, and the phenomenon of crop circles. The editorial stance appears to be one of critical analysis, distinguishing between potential genuine anomalies and misidentifications or hoaxes. There is a clear skepticism towards claims lacking strong evidence, as exemplified by the critique of Jean Vézina's article and the discussion of lunar mimicry as a common source of misidentification. The publication encourages continued information sharing and research within Quebec.