Orbiter - No 33 - 1991

Magazine Overview

Title: ORBITER
Issue: #33
Date: November/December 1991
Publisher: The New England Aerial Phenomena Report

Triangles Over Belgium - The SOBEPS Report

This article by Wim Van Utrecht details the significant UFO flap that occurred in Belgium from November 29, 1989, to June 1991. The flap began with hundreds of sightings of huge, triangular aircraft with bright spotlights, primarily in the eastern regions of Belgium, but later spreading to areas around Brussels and Liege. The phenomenon attracted global media attention, with journalists noting that jet-fighters were scrambled to investigate the inexplicable lights. Policemen, military personnel, and scientists also reported sightings of these objects. Witnesses consistently described triangular platforms with bright-white lights at each corner and a red pulsating light in the middle. Dozens of photographs and approximately 30 video-films were produced, along with a handful of radar tapes. A unique aspect of this flap was the collaboration between the Belgian Royal Air Force and the Brussels-based UFO group SOBEPS (Société Belge d'Etude des Phénomènes Spatiaux).

As UFO reports increased, SOBEPS gained popularity, with its members frequently interviewed and its address and phone number widely published for personal experience reports. The U.S. Air Force assured the Belgian Ministry of Defence that stealth aircraft were not involved. The scientific community remained largely silent, with some suggesting explanations like inversion layers and sea-plankton. The article notes that speculation ran rampant, with almost any unidentified light in the sky being labeled a UFO. The popularity of SOBEPS is credited with strongly influencing the magnitude of the event, drawing parallels to a similar situation twenty years prior.

By the spring of 1991, the sightings had decreased, and SOBEPS announced a detailed report. A book titled "Vague d' OVNI sur la Belgigue - Un dossier exceptionel" (UFO-flap over Belgium - Exceptional file) was published on October 17, comprising over 500 pages and selling out quickly. The introduction was written by Dr. Jean-Pierre Petit of the French "Centre National de Recherche Spatial" (CNRS), with contributions from Professor Auguste Meessen of the "Universite Catholique Libre de Bruxelles." SOBEPS associates BOUGARD, CLEREBAUT, VERTONGEN, and FERRYN also contributed, and Major-general Wilfried De Brouwer wrote the postface.

The article highlights a critical response from ten Belgian scientists, led by astrophysicist Andre Lausberg, who signed a declaration heavily criticizing the SOBEPS report, particularly targeting Prof. Meessen and Dr. Petit for their "rash statements" and "pseudo-scientific approach." This led to the scientific community setting up a "tribunal" to address the dissemination of pseudo-scientific information.

Background information is provided on Meessen and Petit. Prof. Meessen had written theoretical papers on UFOs for "Inforespace" but was criticized for basing his work on unverified accounts and for being a fierce defender of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH). An earlier instance involved Meessen speculating about UFO propulsion systems based on a recorded sound, which was later identified as originating from a transhorizontal radar transmitter.

Dr. Petit is noted for introducing magnetohydrodynamics into ufology and for his book "Enquete sur des extraterrestres qui sont parmi nous - Le mystère des UMMITES," in which he claimed his scientific work was dictated by beings from Ummo. The Ummites have been linked to mysterious letters sent to UFO researchers since 1965. The article also mentions an incident where four CNRS research members were found ordering pizza and ice cream in the "love cave" of the Raelian Movement's headquarters in southern France.

The author concludes that while the evidence gathered by SOBEPS is voluminous, it is not convincing as proof of extraterrestrial manifestations. The photographic evidence yielded only one usable slide, and doubts are raised about its authenticity due to a lack of background details and the photographer discarding a second photo. Other photographic documents are attributed to aircraft lights, reflections, stars, planets, or xenon lamps. Descriptions of objects varied, with shapes including triangles, rectangles, trapeziums, diamonds, and boomerangs, aligning with modern aircraft design concepts. The author suggests that the phenomena might be explained by advanced flying machines such as stealth aircraft (F-117A, A-12 Avenger, TR3-A Black Manta), balloons, or gliders, but the extensive media coverage makes it difficult to determine the exact origin and motive.

Ultimately, the article asserts that, as with previous UFO flaps, it has proven impossible to solidify eye-witness accounts with substantial evidence.

The Santander Symposium

Dr. Willy Smith reports on the first international symposium on UFOs held in Santander, Spain, from October 7-11, 1991. Organized by the Spanish magazine CUADERNOS DE UFOLOGIA and sponsored by CAJA CANTABRIA, the event brought together well-known investigators from various countries. Dr. Smith presented on the development of the UNICAT Project and its initial results, focusing on how different hypotheses are affected by the research.

Other notable presentations included Dr. Richard F. Haines, who discussed electromagnetic effects reported when UFOs approach aircraft, based on data from 55 events between 1947 and 1986. Hilary Evans offered a perspective on the psychological aspects of the UFO phenomenon and explanations for abductions.

Spanish researchers also presented, including Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos, who detailed the involvement of the Spanish military and police in UFO incidents. Physicist Miguel Guasp presented on physiological effects from UFO proximity, and papers were given on cultist groups and their negative influence on ufology.

The symposium allowed ample time for presentations and one-on-one exchanges, a format Dr. Smith suggests MUFON Symposia could adopt. The event was well-attended, with a 500-seat hall nearly full each evening. The conference honored Spanish author and UFO pioneer Antonio Ribera.

From The Letter Box

This section features responses to a previous article by C.D. Allan concerning the La Paz incident.

Kevin D. Randle's Response:
Randle clarifies that he never interviewed Bill Rickett; those interviews were conducted by Don Schmitt and Mark Rodeghier. He states that leading questions are acceptable in interviews and that allegations of misreporting data and fabricating evidence are untrue, asserting that his and Schmitt's reports can be verified.

Bill Moore's Response:
Moore criticizes C.D. Allan, comparing him to "the British Phil Klass." He argues that Allan exposes himself as a hypocrite by scoring "crashed saucerologists" for skewing data while doing the same to support his own conclusions. Moore questions Allan's assumptions about Bill Rickett's memory, stating that Rickett was of sound mind during his own interviews in 1985, and places more reliance on that testimony. Moore also criticizes Allan's assumptions regarding the Air Force briefing La Paz and his reasoning about the unreliability of eye-witness testimony after two months. Moore further debunks Allan's assumptions about the MJ-12 documents, particularly regarding the envelope's stamps and the claim that only three copies existed.

Moore also addresses Allan's reasoning about the Eisenhower document's typeface and paper size, explaining that typeface specifications allow for accurate measurement even from negatives. He concludes that Allan, like Klass, seeks attention and disregards truth and sound reasoning.

C.D. Allan's Assessment:
Allan responds to Moore's critique, calling it an "angry response" and noting that Moore refers to individuals as "incompetent, egotistical, undereducated, underqualified, illogical, emotionally misguided dolts." Allan believes Moore is reviving the defunct MJ-12 affair to bolster his weak Roswell case. He asserts that La Paz's statements about never finding UFO fragments and not mentioning the Roswell disc are sufficient proof that La Paz was not involved in the Roswell recovery. Allan suggests that Moore's narrative implies La Paz lied for 25 years, similar to how Moore and Friedman allegedly promoted the Roswell "myth."

Allan questions the reliance on Rickett's 40-year-old testimony, contrasting it with Rickett's earlier statements when he was "of sound mind and good memory." He proposes a project to find a UFO investigation report by Lewis S. Rickett in the Blue Book files from the late 1940s, suggesting it would not relate to the July 1947 Roswell crash but to an event 18 months to two years later. Allan concludes that neither La Paz nor Rickett had involvement with Roswell and that the "Top Secret" status of Roswell is a myth promoted by Moore and Friedman.

Ed Was A Step Ahead - To The Bank

Barbara Becker critically examines the case of Ed Walters and his "UFO: PHOTOS-PROOF POSITIVE" collection, suggesting a potential for financial gain rather than genuine evidence.

Becker questions the timing of Walters' copyright registration for his photographs, which was submitted on January 12, 1988, the same day he claims to have had a terrifying encounter and taken photo #19. The registration form asked for the year of completion, and Walters listed 1988, despite most photos being taken in 1987. This suggests photo #19 was included in the 1988 submission, raising questions about when Walters had the time to make copies for the Copyright Office, especially given his account of being terrorized and not leaving his house until the next day.

Further scrutiny of the serial numbers on the photos reveals that photo #19 shares the same serial numbers as photos taken in December 1987. This contradicts Walters' claim that photo #19 was taken on January 12, 1988. The article notes that Walters used the same camera for construction work and UFO photography. The sequence of photos and their marks suggests a timeline that does not align with Walters' account of the January 12th event.

Becker points out that Walters sought publishing advice in early 1988 and withheld events and photographs from MUFON investigators. He only disclosed his identity after facing potential loss of support. Walters signed a deal with Morrow Publishing in November 1988, contradicting his earlier statement to Jim Moseley about not intending to publish with a "major publisher." Additionally, Walters denied intending to profit financially from his experiences during a polygraph test in February 1988.

The article also notes that the serial number sheet prepared by Oeschler indicates missing photos and potential tampering. The absence of sequence numbers on some of Walters' photos, unlike typical film processing, is also highlighted. When Oeschler and Maccabee questioned the alignment of photos with Walters' December 17th story, they suggested he might have been abducted and sent him for hypnotic regression, which he underwent.

Becker concludes by presenting the case as having motive, opportunity, questionable photographs, and questionable circumstances, asking the reader to consider how they would rule if they were the judge.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue of Orbiter heavily features critical analysis and skepticism regarding UFO phenomena and their reporting. The primary focus is the Belgian UFO flap, where the article questions the validity of the evidence presented by SOBEPS and highlights the role of media sensationalism. The editorial stance is critical of unsubstantiated claims and emphasizes the need for rigorous scientific scrutiny. The responses in "From The Letter Box" further underscore this critical approach, with both Randle and Moore challenging the methods and conclusions of C.D. Allan. Barbara Becker's article on Ed Walters' photographs directly questions the integrity of photographic evidence when financial motives are suspected. The magazine appears to advocate for a cautious, evidence-based approach to ufology, wary of sensationalism and potential deception.

This document is an excerpt from a publication, likely a magazine or newsletter, focusing on the analysis of the controversial Gulf Breeze UFO photographs. The issue date is inferred to be January 1989, with the content primarily discussing the authenticity and timeline of photographs taken by Ed Walters. The publication appears to be affiliated with MUFON (Mutual UFO Network) and delves into the technical details of the photographic evidence, witness testimony, and the potential for hoax.

Analysis of Ed Walters' Photographs

The core of the document scrutinizes the serial numbers found on Ed Walters' photographs, particularly those from the "J" series. It highlights a perceived discrepancy regarding photo #18, taken on December 23, which shares serial numbers with photos taken in December. The process of film production is explained, noting that each pack of film is part of a larger roll cut into individual photographs. The possibility of obtaining multiple packs with the same serial number is acknowledged, which could explain Walters taking photos in December with one pack and then using another "J" series pack later.

Bob Oeschler's detailed examination of the "GB Serial ID Numbers" sheet is presented. Oeschler noted the "Walters" photo number, the serial number, the mark number, the date, and his comments. A significant observation was the presence of a "P splotch" (a flaw in the film or processing) on five out of eight photos in the "J" series, including photo #19. This flaw was notably absent in photo #10. Ed Walters claimed his original photo #16 was lost during an abduction attempt on December 17, 1987. However, the document points out that there were eight photos in a single pack, and Walters' claim of a lost photo #16 would leave seven photos, not the expected eight. The presence of the "P splotch" on photo #19, but not on #10, raises questions, especially since #19 was allegedly taken on January 12th, while #10 was part of the initial December batch.

The article questions why Walters withheld photo #19, suggesting it was because it "messed up the story for December 17th."

Publication and Investigation Timeline

The document also examines the timeline of events surrounding the release of the photos and the involvement of investigators. It notes that while readers of "The Gulf Breeze Sightings" might assume MUFON investigators were aware of each episode as it happened, this was not the case. Walters took photos 1-5 on November 11, 1987, and they were printed by the Gulf Breeze Sentinel on November 19th. Photo #18, allegedly taken on December 23, 1987, was printed on December 24th and linked to the "Believer Bill" photos. This implies that at least 12 additional photos were taken between the initial batch and photo #18, which MUFON was not aware of.

The article questions Walters' decision to keep these 12 photos secret while maintaining his anonymity.

On December 22, 1987, Don Ware visited the Walters' home with a report for MUFON, which included copies of the first five photographs and site measurements. Subsequently, Walters released photo #18 to Duane Cook at the Gulf Breeze Sentinel. Coincidentally, the "Believer Bill" photos also arrived that morning, and Cook published one "Believer Bill" photo alongside Walters' photo #18 on December 24, 1987. The support from MUFON and the use of the "Believer Bill" photos to bolster Walters' story reportedly made him feel confident.

Book Deal and Copyright

The document suggests that Ed and Frances Walters had intentions of writing a book, contrary to claims that they did not. Ed Walters allegedly stated on January 4, 1988, that he decided to "get the story out," which is interpreted as a decision to write a book. According to Budd Hopkins, a book scout had approached Walters shortly after the photos were published on November 19, 1987, offering a "six-figure advance."

Ware's phone call to Hopkins in early January 1988 was to seek assistance regarding "publishing issues." Hopkins advised that the case should be thoroughly investigated, photos authenticated, and Walters should undergo a polygraph. The article suggests that Ware likely discussed these steps with Ed Walters.

The document questions Walters' statement to his polygrapher, Harvey McLaughlin Jr., on February 18, 1988, that he expected "no personal gain or remuneration from these sightings." It also references Jim Moseley's account from December 1988, where Walters reportedly protested involvement in a "money making book." The article implies that MORROW, a publisher, and a six-figure advance contradict these statements.

It is noted that Walt Andrus mentioned that the experience of Ed and his wife from November 11, 1987, through May 1, 1988, would be published in their forthcoming book, "UFO: PHOTOS PROOF POSITIVE."

The timeline for the book's conception is further questioned, as Walters implies considering a book on January 4, 1988, yet he already possessed a copyright form on January 12th. The article states that obtaining such a form within five working days via direct contact with the Copyright Office would be difficult, suggesting the book idea had to have started much earlier.

On January 7, 1988, Walters met with MUFON investigators, revealed his identity, and discussed the events and photos from November 11, 1987, to January 6, 1988. This timing is linked to Dr. Maccabee's statement that his interest in the sightings would have ended without Walters revealing himself. Walters needed Maccabee's support, which was one of the key points for publishing a book outlined by Hopkins. After securing the support of MUFON, Maccabee, and Hopkins, Walters sent in his Copyright Registration.

Photographic Evidence and Hoax Potential

Bruce Maccabee is quoted stating that photographic evidence alone does not make a case, as photographs can be hoaxed. He emphasizes that photos are aids, and the story and circumstances surrounding them support the case. He likens it to a lawyer's perspective where physical evidence can be disputed.

The article also points out that photos #6 through #19 were taken at the Walters' home, with 10 of them allegedly taken in the early morning hours (1-6 AM). The authors suggest that Ed and Frances Walters could have taken these photos without drawing suspicion, especially since no one suspected anything extraordinary was happening at their household. The fact that Walters was known as "Mr. Ed" further allowed him to operate unnoticed.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this excerpt are the scrutiny of photographic evidence, the potential for hoax in UFO sightings, the strategic management of information and evidence for publication, and the credibility of witness testimony. The editorial stance appears to be skeptical, critically examining the claims made by Ed Walters and questioning the timeline and authenticity of the Gulf Breeze photographs. The analysis focuses on inconsistencies, potential motives for deception (such as financial gain from a book deal), and the investigative process itself.