SVL Tijdschrift - Jaargang 4 No 13 - jan 1985

Magazine Overview

This issue of SVLT, a quarterly journal from the Study Group for Strange Aerial Phenomena (Studiegroep voor Vreemde Luchtverschijnselen), dated January 1985, presents a collection of articles and reports on UFO phenomena. The cover features a dramatic collage of headlines, including 'Are the Russians Talking?' alongside an image of a Soviet MiG fighter jet, and a story about a 'space baby' and a UFO crash. The issue is published by the Study Group for Strange Aerial Phenomena (founded in 1979) and is edited by Jacques Bonabot, with Wim Van Utrecht as publisher.

Editorial Stance and Key Articles

Editorial: 'Woord Vooraf' by Wim Van Utrecht

Wim Van Utrecht, in his editorial, addresses the resurgence of UFO interest in the media, noting the sensationalism surrounding the topic. He highlights the work of Henry Gris, a writer for The National Enquirer and UPI correspondent, whose reports on UFOs and parapsychology, particularly his account of a 'space baby' in Russia, are deemed spectacular but questionable. Van Utrecht cites a critique from the Swedish group AFU, which demonstrated that Gris's stories were of poor quality. He also questions the swiftness of Gris's confirmation of the 'space baby' story to the UROS group, suggesting it might be part of a publicity campaign. Despite the sensationalism, SVL and GESAG continue their work discreetly with foreign correspondents, referring to this network as an 'Invisible College'.

Article: 'Some Preliminary Notes on a Study of Physical Traces in Association with UFO Events' by Maurizio Verga

This article, translated by Wim Van Utrecht, explores the complexities of investigating physical traces left by alleged UFO events. Verga argues that physical traces are crucial as they provide tangible evidence that can help move the UFO phenomenon beyond purely psychological interpretations. However, he notes that the extraterrestrial hypothesis is increasingly relying on physical traces as its foundation crumbles. Verga points out that natural phenomena (like lightning, whirlwinds, or animal activity) and human activities can also create unusual traces, making identification difficult. He cautions against the tendency to link any unusual trace to UFOs, especially when the witness's perception might be influenced by pre-existing beliefs or the desire to prove the phenomenon's reality. Verga suggests that many reported traces are either natural, artificial, or even deliberate hoaxes. He emphasizes that only a small fraction of reported trace cases are thoroughly investigated, and much of the 'irrefutable evidence' comes from newspaper articles or witness testimonies. He concludes that the 'trace phenomenon' is a small part of the overall UFO reports, with only about 3.6% of total reports being trace cases. Verga advocates for a more critical approach, acknowledging that natural and artificial causes are the most likely explanations for most traces, and that even the most rigorous research may not yield strictly scientific conclusions.

Article: 'Strange Aerial Phenomena Above Flanders (Part 6)' by Jacques Bonabot

This installment continues Jacques Bonabot's series on UFO sightings in Flanders, covering the period from April 1384 up to April 20, 1950. The article includes several specific reports:

• August 1947, Veldwezelt, Belgium: A witness reported a flying disc or sphere, described as a glowing ball without a tail, as large as the full moon, flying at full speed from west to east.
• August 1947, Lanaken, Belgium: A witness saw a blood-red flying saucer with a short tail of green flickering light.
• August 1947, Tongeren, Belgium: Residents reported seeing 'flying spheres' moving at high speed.
• August 1947, Sint-Truiden, Belgium: A radio electrician launched two light-green balloons with a newspaper as a counterweight. One was launched between 7-8 PM, the other between 9-10 PM. The balloons drifted slowly to the NNE, a direction consistent with the locations of Veldwezelt and Zutendaal, leading to speculation that these might have been the observed phenomena.
• August 1947, Wingene, Belgium: Michel D. and four other witnesses reported seeing a disc with a bright, silver-like color hovering motionless in the south at an altitude of 80 degrees. It disappeared westward at incredible speed.
• 1948 or 1949, Wilrijk, Belgium: According to Marc Broux, citing Hubert Lampo, a fiery mass was observed at an altitude of 200 meters, attracting attention due to excited children.
• Summer 1949, Wilrijk, Belgium: Witness H. reported seeing a yellow light ball rotating from left to right at an estimated altitude of 8000-9000 meters. It moved in a complex pattern, returning to its original position before speeding away in a specific direction.
• 1931 or 1932, Melle, Belgium: A sighting with characteristics similar to the Wilrijk incident was reported.
• March 24, 1950, Hasselt, Belgium: A black, flattened object, described as a flying saucer, was observed hovering motionless before spiraling upwards and disappearing.
• March 24, 1950, Leuven, Belgium: Several people observed a luminous object with a brown color that moved, sometimes brighter, sometimes less so, at a considerable height.

Bonabot appeals to other Belgian UFO groups and readers to contribute any old sightings from their archives to complete the chronological overview.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of UFO evidence, particularly physical traces, and the ongoing documentation of historical sightings. The editorial stance, as articulated by Wim Van Utrecht, is one of cautious skepticism towards sensationalist reporting and a commitment to rigorous, albeit discreet, investigation. There is a clear emphasis on distinguishing between verifiable facts and speculative interpretations, urging readers to maintain an open mind while avoiding dogmatic adherence to any single hypothesis. The magazine appears to favor a scientific approach, even while acknowledging the inherent difficulties in definitively proving or disproving the existence of a physical UFO phenomenon. The inclusion of historical reports from Flanders and the critique of sensationalist journalism suggest a dedication to providing a more grounded perspective on UFOlogy.

This issue of the SVL Tijdschrift, volume 3, issue 3/12, dated October 1984, focuses on UFO sightings and the reliability of ufological data, with a particular emphasis on reports from Belgium and the Netherlands.

UFO Sightings in Limburg (March 1950)

The issue begins by detailing two significant UFO sightings reported in the Limburg region of Belgium in March 1950. The first, on March 24th at 1:25 PM near Berenheuvel (close to Eisden), was reported by Messrs. Maes Jan, Corstjens Henri, and Brepels Louis. They described a peculiar, faint humming sound followed by the sighting of an oval, flat craft with a rear indentation that emitted white smoke. The object moved in a zigzag pattern at high altitude, at a speed estimated to be at least three times that of a conventional aircraft. The second sighting occurred in Schalkoven on the same day at 9:25 PM, reported by Mr. Jos Peters and members of the Zangkoor. They observed an object in the sky for about a minute, which bore a strong resemblance to 'Flying Saucers.' It moved from the East, made several turns, and then disappeared rapidly to the West, leaving a trail of fire similar to the 'V1' weapon. Approximately ten people witnessed this phenomenon.

Light Phenomenon near Moortzele (April 1950)

Another report, published in 'Het Laatste Nieuws' on April 21, 1950, under the title "HET ZONDERLINGE VERSCHIJNSEL BOVEN ONS LAND" (The Strange Phenomenon Above Our Land), describes a light phenomenon witnessed by a teacher, Mr. G. De Graeve, and student Raf Van Spaendonck near the Moortzele station in West Flanders on April 16, 1950. They observed a bright, flame-like phenomenon at an altitude of eight hundred to a thousand meters, likened to burning gasoline. The object did not appear to move rapidly, but it remained visible for a few moments before disappearing. This was followed by a dull rumbling sound, possibly from distant bombs, though its connection to the phenomenon is unconfirmed.

UFO Sighting in Brugge (April 1950)

'Le Journal de Bruges' reported on April 22, 1950, under the title "UNE SOUCOUPE VOLANTE A BRUGES" ("A FLYING SAUCER IN BRUGGE"), a sighting of a flying saucer above Brugge. On April 24th at 9:40 PM, several individuals observed a round, bright white light with jagged edges in the northwest sky. It was described as larger than a star but smaller than the moon. Shortly after, a sickle-shaped light was seen, with the unusual characteristic of being U-shaped, flattened, and very thin. Initially mistaken for the moon, the observers realized its unusual position and shape.

Book Review: 'UFO's Waarnemingen boven Nederland en België'

The issue includes a review of the fourth, revised edition of the book 'UFO's Waarnemingen boven Nederland en België' by Koert Broersma and Arie De Snoo. The review notes that the book covers UFO sightings in the Netherlands and Belgium and includes new material since its previous editions. However, the reviewer expresses disappointment with the foreword by Chriet Titulaer, criticizing his perceived lack of familiarity with recent UFO research and his assertion that ufology is a 'dead end.' The review also points out that the book's coverage of 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' is incomplete, particularly regarding cases in Belgium. Specific Belgian cases, such as the UFOnaut sighting in Vilvoorde (1973) and the 'Schoonaarde case' (1979), are omitted. The review also criticizes the book for not paying enough attention to UFO reports from Wallonia and for using outdated graphics and factual errors, such as the incorrect date for the first Belgian sighting.

Reliability of Ufological Data

A significant portion of the issue is dedicated to discussing the reliability of ufological data, particularly in relation to the works of Aimé Michel and Jacques Vallée. The article examines instances where summaries in UFO catalogs differ from the original texts, suggesting potential misrepresentations or exaggerations. It analyzes 16 cases from the catalog "Un siècle d'atterissages UFO" and finds that some summaries contain serious deviations, while others involve slight exaggerations or no deviations at all. The author questions whether these discrepancies are systematic and points to the work of D. Caudron, who accused sources of being "terribly tampered with." The article also discusses the potential for error in the work of respected ufologists like Aimé Michel and Jacques Vallée, noting that while they may have made mistakes, their influence has led to a 'legend' around their findings, making it difficult to challenge them. The author expresses concern that some of their writings, which may not be entirely accurate, are presented as serious, potentially misleading researchers.

Specific Case Analyses

The article delves into specific cases to illustrate the discrepancies in reporting. For instance, the Charlton case (16.07.63) is examined, where catalog summaries mention a crater and burnt vegetation, while other sources indicate no UFO was seen and no burning occurred. The Texas case (03.09.66) is also mentioned, where a summary describes a "fantastic" light illuminating a house, while the main text refers to a "strange" and "lit" phenomenon. The Jalapa case (10.09.65) is another example, where a summary describes a creature walking down the street, while the original text mentions an object with a creature inside that disappeared.

Conclusion on Data Reliability

The analysis of 16 cases from "Un siècle d'atterissages UFO" reveals that while not all summaries are systematically distorted, there are significant deviations and exaggerations in some. The article concludes that the work of Aimé Michel, in particular, contains numerous errors and questionable claims, such as "flying saucers from the paleolithic" and a police novel about the "suspicious deaths of ufologists." The author suggests that the influence of figures like Michel and Vallée has created an environment where their work is accepted without critical scrutiny, posing a significant risk to the field of ufology.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the reporting and analysis of UFO sightings, the critical examination of ufological documentation, and the debate surrounding the reliability of witness testimony and historical UFO records. The editorial stance appears to be one of critical inquiry, emphasizing the need for rigorous analysis and caution against accepting claims uncritically, even when presented by well-known figures in the field. The magazine aims to provide a platform for detailed reporting and thoughtful discussion on UFO phenomena.

This issue of the SVL-JOURNAL, titled 'SVL-JOURNAL N° 4/13', published in December 1982, is a trimonthly publication from the 'Group for Study of Strange Aerial Phenomena' (SVL) based in Belgium. The journal aims to provide English summaries of articles of interest to English-speaking UFO researchers, particularly those concerning UFO research in France and CE-cases from Belgium and Holland. The price of an annual subscription is 400 Belgian Francs for four issues.

Halle-Enghien (Bra): 13-02-1983

The main feature is an investigation into a UFO sighting that occurred on February 13, 1983, between 21:20 and 21:45 in Halle-Enghien, Brabant, Belgium. The case, investigated by Michel Van der Elst and summarized by Wim Van Utrecht, involved four witnesses (Mr. and Mrs. X, and Mr. and Mrs. Y). The witnesses were driving on the Halle-Enghien highway when they observed a phenomenon they initially described as a large orange star. They pulled over near a farm where the object was clearly visible, closer, and hovering. It was impossible to discern a silhouette, but two powerful spotlights illuminated the night. The object was stationary and silent. It then moved towards them slowly and silently, without any red or green navigation lights typical of aircraft. After passing over them, it moved away, and when they drove back to the area, it was gone. Later, on the same highway towards Halle, the 'orange star' reappeared to the left of their car. They estimated their speed at around 90 km/h, and the object did not appear faster. Its flight was not entirely horizontal, possibly due to an optical effect, and it moved with 'calm goat jumps'. Near Halle, it abruptly turned east and flew over them again, with the two spotlights visible. They also thought they saw small lights or 'openings' at the top. It then seemed to disappear instantly. The report notes the lack of other witnesses due to the sparsely populated highway.

Additional details from the SOBEPS investigation include that the four witnesses observed the object for about 10 minutes. The spotlights moved from a vertical to a horizontal position before the object moved towards them. The light was yellow, and the altitude was estimated at 100 meters. The small windows appeared to emit a yellow-orange, non-blinding light. No side effects were noted when the object flew over them. The report also mentions that the witnesses might have seen double rows of windows. The context of the conversation in the car about 'stars' before the sighting is noted as a potential factor for misinterpretation.

Further details from the investigation reveal that the object was observed over a 7 km stretch of highway. It accelerated, turned east, and disappeared over the horizon. The area is rural, with fields and small roads. The weather was cool, with a clear sky and little wind. The moon and Venus had already set, and Jupiter was not visible. The object's shape was compared to a bus, but its trajectory ruled out a conventional bus. The report mentions that the object was silent, which is unusual for helicopters, but notes that helicopters can be inaudible due to wind direction or special silencers.

Review and Analysis

The article in Inforespace titled 'RR 1 dans le Brabant' ('CE 1 in Brabant') is reviewed. The authors, Jacques Bonabot and Wim Van Utrecht, had previously pointed out in Inforespace that terms like 'CE I' should only be used after a thorough investigation. They emphasize respecting Hynek's classification system. The SVL's assessment of the Halle-Enghien case is that labeling it 'CE 1' is premature. While interesting, it could be a helicopter sighting. The lack of sound is noted but does not rule out this possibility, as helicopters can be difficult to hear. The report references 'The UFO Handbook' by Allan Hendry for information on the inaudibility of aircraft.

Recent Sightings

This section presents recent Belgian and Dutch UFO/IFO (Identified Flying Object) reports from the preceding six months.

Hengelo (Overijssel), Netherlands - 22/11/1984

Two police officers in Hengelo reported seeing a large grey object flying over the Deldenerstraat. They pursued it and found it to be an empty, plastic pond liner that had been blown away by the wind. The object was temporarily stored at the police station.

*SVL Evaluation: Blown-away pond liner. Nothing is too strange...

Sint-Andries, Bruges (W-Vlaanderen), Belgium - 29/11/1984

A 15-year-old student reported seeing a cluster of small yellow lights forming a circle, approximately 100° azimuth and 20° elevation. The lights appeared to be a circular surface emitting a non-blinding yellow light. The phenomenon moved directly overhead and then disappeared. The student relocated and saw it reappear, moving over a railway embankment and disappearing again in the WNW direction (280° azimuth, 25° elevation).

*SVL Evaluation: Insufficient. Insufficient details were observed regarding the phenomenon itself. The sighting of a light high in the sky offers too little basis for a meaningful assessment. This isolated testimony is not interesting for deeper research and is only retained for potential confirmation or identification in the future.

Amsterdam (N-Holland), Netherlands - 01/12/1984

A Belgian advertising plane, flying from Schiphol, caused numerous UFO reports in Amsterdam due to its illuminated advertising messages. A 27-year-old freelance pilot accidentally switched off the navigation lights while activating the 'strobe lights'. The aircraft, a Cessna 172, flew for about half an hour before being alerted by air traffic control. Witnesses described it as a 'strange octagonal thing with all sorts of lights'.

*SVL Evaluation: Advertising plane. The Belgian and Dutch press extensively covered this incident. Similar misinterpretations have occurred in Belgium. It is noted that IFO sightings usually involve independent witnesses, unlike UFO sightings.

Letters to the Editor

Reply from the editor regarding Jan Heering's statement

This section addresses a statement by Jan Heering, published in SVL 3/10 (April 1984), claiming that both FSR and The MUFON UFO Journal were not interested in publishing corrections. Gordon Creighton, publisher of FSR, wrote to Jan Heering on June 26, asking for details to support this charge, as FSR had published his statement. Since Heering did not reply, Creighton asked the SVL's Board of Directors for their opinion and documentation.

The SVL's 'Reply from the editor' admits that publishing Heering's doubts without specific examples was wrong. It clarifies that Heering's statement might refer to a specific incident with the former FSR editor (Charles Bowen) or a general tendency in ufology. The unusual aspect is that Jan Heering has withdrawn from UFO research, as indicated by his reply to the German UFO journal CENAP REPORT, stating he is no longer active in the field and regrets he cannot be of further help.

The SVL has decided to bring Creighton's letter and the editor's reply to Heering's attention. If no clarifying response is received, Creighton will have the last word. The editor notes that a letter was received from Jan Heering promising a text to clarify his accusations, which will appear in the next SVL issue.

Claude Maugé's comments on the reliability of ufological data

Claude Maugé writes in response to articles by Aimé Michel and Jacques Vallée, and a defense of them by Jacques Bonabot. Maugé acknowledges Bonabot's point that Michel and Vallée did not exaggerate in three specific cases. However, he questions whether this can be generalized. Maugé cites examples from the catalogue 'A century of UFO landings' where summaries allegedly distort the original texts, such as the cases of Boardman, Temple, and Charlton. He notes that while there isn't a systematic deformation, there are discrepancies.

Maugé also discusses the potential for misinterpretation and the importance of rigorous research. He criticizes the tendency to accept the word of prominent ufologists without question, creating a 'legend' around them. He points out that many of Michel's ideas were copied without examination, and that Vallée and Michel, while pioneers, may have made mistakes. Maugé expresses concern about the overall reliability of the ufological field, stating that he is compiling a list of cases that have been explained or are doubtful, and that a significant portion comes from Vallée's catalogue.

Maugé concludes by anticipating criticism for his views, thanking J. Bonabot for his earlier critique, and emphasizing the value of criticism for self-correction and clarifying ideas.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue highlights a recurring theme of questioning the reliability of ufological data and the methods used in reporting and analyzing UFO sightings. The editorial stance appears to be one of critical inquiry, encouraging thorough investigation and caution against premature conclusions or uncritical acceptance of claims, particularly from prominent figures in the field. The journal actively engages with debates within the ufology community, as evidenced by the letters to the editor and the detailed analysis of specific cases and publications. There is a clear emphasis on distinguishing between genuine UFO sightings and misinterpretations or hoaxes, and on the importance of verifiable evidence.