Quaderni UFO - Vol 02 No 07 - 1982 03-04

Magazine Overview

Title: Quaderni UFO
Issue: No. 7
Volume: 2
Date: March/April 1982
Publisher: Centro Ufologico Nazionale (C.U.N.)
Type: Bimonthly supplement to Notiziario UFO.

This issue of Quaderni UFO delves deeply into the controversial topic of physical evidence related to UFO sightings, particularly 'traces' left on the ground and vegetation. It features critical analyses of investigative methodologies, the reliability of witness testimony, and the role of organizations like GEPAN in the study of ufology.

Articles and Content

"ALCUNE NOTE PRELIMINARI SU UNO STUDIO DELLE TRACCE FISICHE ASSOCIATE A FENOMENI UFO" by Maurizio Verga

Maurizio Verga initiates the discussion by defining 'traces' (imprints, signs, residues) as the physical evidence that would prove the material and tangible nature of UFO phenomena. He notes that this physical evidence has been crucial for ufologists to reject purely psychological explanations for sightings. However, Verga raises significant doubts about the reliability and interpretation of these traces. He argues that the variability in trace evidence (some cases have them, others don't) suggests the phenomenon is not monolithic. He posits that if traces were created subconsciously by the witness, it would offer a different perspective. Verga highlights that natural phenomena (fungi, plant diseases, lightning, wind, animals) and human activities (vehicles, fires, farming) can produce unusual marks on the ground and vegetation. He criticizes the tendency to immediately associate any unusual trace with UFOs, often influenced by media stereotypes and personal biases. Verga points out that many reported UFO trace cases are not rigorously investigated, and even when they are, investigators may lack the necessary scientific preparation, leading to subjective interpretations. He estimates that only about 3.6% of reported trace cases are sufficiently investigated and remain unexplained, with a significant portion of the available 'evidence' based on press articles or simple testimonies. He also addresses the issue of deliberate falsification of traces for economic, psychological, or other motives, noting the sophistication of some hoaxes. Verga concludes that the 'physical evidence' for UFOs is based on a very small number of 'unassailable' cases and that the field is plagued by a lack of scientific rigor, often driven by wishful thinking rather than objective analysis. He proposes that a more realistic approach requires accepting the destruction of ingrained beliefs and understanding phenomena rather than blindly believing.

"IL GEPAN - 'LA GRANDE ILLUSIONE'" by Jean SIDER

Jean SIDER presents a critical account of his experience at the GEPAN stand during the "BOURGET 1981" air show. He describes the stand as meager and disappointing, featuring information that suggested current data did not allow conclusions about extraterrestrial intelligence. Sider criticizes GEPAN's director, Alain Esterlé, for his distant and uncooperative attitude during their brief conversation. He notes that GEPAN's display focused on identifying conventional phenomena like lenticular clouds and missile exhaust, rather than showcasing evidence of unidentified flying objects. Sider expresses concern that GEPAN's approach, similar to past American projects, is designed to debunk UFO claims and misinform the public. He highlights GEPAN's technical notes, which he claims focus on demolishing well-known cases (like the "disappearance" case and the "isoscelia" theory) while ignoring more credible sightings. Sider accuses GEPAN of selectively citing individuals, using pseudonyms for some while naming others, which he sees as a violation of their stated policy of discretion. He concludes that GEPAN's primary function seems to be discrediting fraudulent, contested, and unclear cases, as well as the work of private researchers, thereby contributing to public confusion.

"LETTERA APERTA AL GEPAN" by Perry PETRAKIS

Perry Petrakis writes an open letter to GEPAN, expressing his evolving views on the organization. He recalls their initial neutral stance in 1977 and their subsequent support for GEPAN's actions, including publicizing its activities. However, Petrakis states that after observing GEPAN's work over the years, he believes "something fundamental is wrong." He criticizes GEPAN's focus on discrediting cases and researchers, suggesting their approach is overly negative and contributes to the "imbecillimento del pubblico" (public's dumbing down). He implies that GEPAN, despite its scientific facade, is a successor to the sophisticated methods of American projects aimed at controlling the UFO narrative.

"NOTA DEL DIRETTORE RESPONSABILE DI 'OVNI PRESENCE' A PROPOSITO DI CERTE FOTOGRAFIE" by Yves BOSSON

Yves Bosson addresses the issue of photographs transmitted by GEPAN to journalist Robert Arnoux, which appeared in "LE PARISIEN" and other publications. Bosson identifies these photos as fakes originating from the Swiss contactee "Billy" Meyer, whose work has been widely debunked by organizations like MUFON-CES and GSW. He criticizes GEPAN for presenting these photos as potentially genuine, especially given that Meyer's claims and photos have been thoroughly investigated and exposed as fraudulent. Bosson questions whether the journalist or GEPAN is misleading the public.

"NOTA : Da Milano......" by Roberto FARABONE

Roberto Farabone clarifies points made in Jean Sider's article. He defends Alain Esterlé, describing him as a well-prepared, open-minded, and modest individual who is willing to engage in dialogue. Farabone criticizes Sider's perceived bias towards the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH) and his lack of scientific rigor in his arguments. He disputes Sider's claim that GEPAN's stand at Bourget was solely focused on identifiable phenomena, arguing that it was valuable to correctly identify common sightings like lenticular clouds and missile exhaust to prevent them from being mislabeled as UFOs. Farabone also refutes Sider's assertion about the selective citation of individuals in GEPAN's Technical Note No. 3, stating that all individuals mentioned were explicitly named. He agrees with Sider that public "dumbing down" is occurring, but suggests Sider's article itself is an example of this.

"FEBBRAIO E PASSATO"

A brief announcement from the National Coordination regarding friends who are late in sending their news.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of UFO evidence, particularly physical traces, and the methodologies employed by ufological organizations. There is a strong undercurrent of skepticism towards claims of definitive proof of extraterrestrial visitation based on current evidence. The editorial stance appears to favor rigorous scientific investigation, a critical approach to witness testimony and alleged evidence, and a healthy skepticism towards sensationalism and unsubstantiated claims within the ufological community. The issue highlights a division between those who seek to rigorously debunk and those who advocate for more open-minded, yet scientifically grounded, research into the UFO phenomenon.

This issue of "COMMENTO SULL' ARTICOLO : "IL GEPAN O 'LA GRANDE ILLUSIONE'" di Jean Sider." is primarily a commentary by Antonio Chiumiento on an article by Jean Sider concerning the French UFO research organization GEPAN. The magazine also includes a list of members and collaborators of the "ELENCO SOCI & COLLABORATORI 1982-" and a section titled "TEMI DA PALERMO" and "TEMI DA ROMA" discussing various aspects of ufology.

Commentary on Jean Sider's Article

Antonio Chiumiento begins by addressing Jean Sider's opinion on GEPAN, stating that while Sider believes UFOs are a real phenomenon of extraterrestrial origin, Chiumiento views UFOs as a cause that provokes a certain "effect," identified as a "sighting report." He argues that the term "UFO" lacks a precise objective definition. Chiumiento criticizes Sider's approach as potentially leading to fideism rather than rational inquiry. He acknowledges GEPAN's potential for scientific study, emphasizing that the phenomenology of UFOs is complex, appearing physical, psychic, technological, magical, solid, or fluid. He stresses that the true nature of the phenomenon remains unknown and that it's unclear whether perceived phenomena are real or distorted images, possibly influenced by our own psyche.

Chiumiento asserts that it is crucial to study "Identified Flying Objects" (IFOs) because those who report them are often the same individuals who report UFOs. Analyzing IFO cases allows for a comparison between objective data and witness accounts, highlighting errors and exaggerations, which is vital for the scientific study of UFO phenomena through testimonial data.

He refutes Sider's claim that GEPAN studies only IFOs, calling it unfounded. Chiumiento also disagrees with Sider's statement that GEPAN will not reveal the exact nature of UFOs, suggesting that GEPAN is open to private research groups. He advocates for a balanced approach, warning against prematurely abandoning research to embrace belief.

Regarding Sider's complaint about Mr. Esterlé, Chiumiento believes in hearing both sides of the story before forming a judgment. He concludes by emphasizing the difficulty of making this official organization credible to the scientific community and the need for moderation and discretion among GEPAN members.

Conference Announcements and Reports

The issue includes announcements for two events: a conference on "U.F.O. : REALTA' DI UN FENOMENO" (UFO: REALITY OF A PHENOMENON) to be held on May 13, 1982, at the "CENTRO CULTURALE A. MORO" in Cordenons, with Professor Antonio Chiumiento as the speaker. It also mentions a briefing conference on UFO issues for the Carabinieri of Pordenone, held on November 18, 1981, also by Antonio Chiumiento.

Astronomical Phenomena Mistaken for UFOs

Antonio Chiumiento, in the second part of his report, discusses how various astronomical and atmospheric phenomena can be mistaken for UFOs. He explains that radar signals can be distorted by ice crystals in the atmosphere or by temperature inversions, leading to false detections. He also mentions that meteors penetrating the atmosphere can cause radio frequency disturbances. Chiumiento lists several phenomena that can be confused with UFOs, including optical refractions, atmospheric ionizations, sounding balloons, artificial satellites, ball lightning, collective hallucinations, mass hysterias, and vulgar mystifications.

Despite these explanations, Chiumiento acknowledges that a significant portion of UFO cases cannot be explained by conventional means. He points to physical evidence found at sighting locations, such as holes in the ground, circular burn marks, broken branches, and effects on animals, as indicators that not all cases are easily dismissed. He argues that it is a mistake for science to ignore UFO reports, citing historical examples where new research initially faced scientific hostility.

Chiumiento clarifies that the "U" in UFO stands for "unidentified" (or "unidentifiable for the moment"), not necessarily extraterrestrial. He suggests possibilities like parallel realities, hyperspace, psychic projections, or even non-physical intelligences. He emphasizes that the primary role of ufological research is to investigate sighting reports and analyze testimonial data.

He details how to distinguish astronomical objects from UFOs, categorizing them into five groups: stars and planets, meteorites and satellites, orbiting satellites, meteors, and the Moon. He explains how the apparent luminosity and movement of planets like Venus and Jupiter, or bright stars, can lead to misidentification. He also recounts instances where Venus was mistaken for a UFO and the Moon was perceived as a flying saucer with Martians.

Regarding meteors, he discusses the contribution of amateur astronomy groups, like the Unione Astrofili Italiana, in cataloging "shooting stars" and "bolides" (meteors brighter than Venus). He notes that some bolides exhibit peculiar trajectories and colors, and some have been reported with visual anomalies or even accompanied by sounds.

Artificial satellites re-entering the atmosphere also create spectacular phenomena due to friction and combustion, which can be mistaken for UFOs.

Chiumiento concludes that collaboration between ufology and astronomy is highly beneficial, and that the role of the "all-around ufologist" is becoming obsolete in favor of interdisciplinary cooperation. He laments that official science, particularly in Italy, is not very supportive of such studies, but highlights the value of amateur groups.

"TEMI DA PALERMO" and "TEMI DA ROMA"

These sections present different perspectives on UFO research. "TEMI DA PALERMO" by Roberto Farabone, under the heading "INVITO ALLA RIFLESSIONE," discusses the challenge of defining UFOs and the tendency to label anything strange as a UFO. Farabone notes the broad range of topics covered in a conference, from the human mind to aerial disasters and UFO research, questioning whether this proliferation indicates vitality or persistent confusion.

"TEMI DA ROMA" by Roberto Farabone focuses on "IL PROBLEMA DEGLI I.P.O. DI CARATTERE ASTRONOMICO: PROPOSTE PER UNA RICERCA SCIENTIFICA." Farabone, who began his ufological research recently, focuses on the astronomical aspect. He references Flavio Roux and Allan Hendry's "Guida all'Ufologia," highlighting Hendry's point that 90% of investigated cases are IFOs, and that understanding UFOs might require studying them as a "limit-concept" by analyzing IFOs.

Farabone states his specific field is astronomy, particularly meteor observation. He notes that most astronomically interpretable sightings fall under the category of "nocturnal lights." He emphasizes that the scientific approach to ufology lies not just in the subject matter but in the researcher's attitude and methodology, which often require extensive study and reflection.

He outlines five categories of objects easily mistaken for UFOs: stars and planets, meteorites and satellites, orbiting satellites, meteors, and the Moon. He elaborates on how the strong luminosity of planets like Venus and Jupiter, or bright stars, can attract attention and lead to misperceptions of movement or duplication due to retinal persistence and eye movements.

He also discusses the contribution of amateur astronomy groups, like the Unione Astrofili Italiana, in cataloging meteors and bolides. He mentions that bolides can have unusual trajectories, colors, and sometimes break apart, producing audible booms. He notes that artificial satellites re-entering the atmosphere also create spectacular phenomena.

Farabone concludes that the collaboration between ufology and astronomy is essential and that the era of the "all-around ufologist" is past, replaced by interdisciplinary cooperation. He expresses concern about the lack of support for such studies from official science in Italy.

"PROGETTO ITALIA 3"

This section announces an initiative by the "Amici Romani di Documenti UFO" to address the perceived lack of focus on Italian UFO cases within the international ufological community, particularly concerning "CE.III, IS, (IR.3)" phenomena. A meeting was held in Rome, and another is planned for early June in Florence or Bologna to organize work with various research groups and centers. They emphasize the need for maximum participation and assure organizational support from the "Centro."

ELENCO SOCI & COLLABORATORI 1982-

This extensive list provides the names, roles (President, Vice President, Counselor, Auditor, etc.), and contact information (phone numbers) of the members and collaborators of the "ELENCO SOCI & COLLABORATORI 1982-" organization, categorized by their respective cities and regions across Italy. It also includes a "NOTA" explaining that individuals not in compliance with certain statutes and regulations are not listed, but will be published later if regularized.

LETTERA APERTA A:

This section contains an open letter from Massimo Greco responding to a Mr. Pagani. Greco addresses Pagani's request for "demonstrations" and explanations regarding UFOs. Greco acknowledges the familiarity of Menzel's name in Italy but suggests his books are rarely read. He defends his stance on accepting both Menzel and Mc Donald, stating he never said to censor Mc Donald but rather to read both. Regarding critiques of the Condon Report by Mr. Cabassi, Greco agrees with the criticisms but believes they should encourage, not deter, reading the report. He defends the categorization of "UFO-believers" as applying to Italian ufologists generally, not just a select few, and suggests that true researchers are still developing.

Greco draws a parallel between ufology and politics, stating that while both have their issues, ufology is "certainly worse." He declines to provide further "demonstrations," stating there is nothing to demonstrate. He encourages researchers to consult foreign sources for information, as Italian sources may not be the best. He offers to provide addresses of researchers who sell foreign ufological texts to those who have difficulty obtaining them.

Greco concludes by quoting Pagani: "It is astonishing that from time to time we must return to the same old things, known to everyone," wishing for this to be at least for the sake of heaven.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the scientific investigation of UFO phenomena, the challenges of defining and classifying UFOs, the distinction between UFOs and IFOs (Identified Flying Objects), and the role of astronomical and atmospheric phenomena in misidentifications. There is a strong emphasis on the need for rigorous methodology, interdisciplinary collaboration (particularly between ufology and astronomy), and the importance of consulting a wide range of sources, including foreign research. The editorial stance appears to advocate for a more scientific and less fideistic approach to ufology, while acknowledging the existence of unexplained cases that warrant further investigation. The issue also highlights the efforts of amateur ufological groups in Italy and their desire for greater recognition and collaboration.