SVL Tijdschrift - Jaargang 4 No 15 - juli 1985

Magazine Overview

Title: SVLT
Issue: Nr. 15
Volume: 4
Date: July 1985
Publisher: Studiegroep voor Vreemde Luchtverschijnselen (Study Group for Strange Aerial Phenomena)
Country: Belgium
Language: Dutch
Cover Headline: "Spoorgevallen in België van dichterbij bekeken" (UFO Trace Cases in Belgium Examined More Closely)

This issue of SVLT, a quarterly journal dedicated to the study of UFO sightings, presents a detailed examination of physical trace cases reported in Belgium and critically assesses the use of statistics in ufology. The cover features a stylized map of Belgium with a magnifying glass over a fingerprint, symbolizing the investigative approach to UFO phenomena.

Editorial and Administrative Notes

The "Woord Vooraf" (Foreword) by editor Wim Van Utrecht addresses two main points. Firstly, he expresses gratitude to Dhr. Marc Broux of UFO 21 for a significant financial contribution that has resolved the journal's financial problems, allowing its continuation. Secondly, Van Utrecht announces a personal situation that will prevent him from actively engaging with the journal for at least a year, starting from the end of the following year. This will inevitably lead to delays of one to two months in publication, for which he apologizes. He mentions that more drastic measures, like a yearly report or a bi-annual double issue, were considered but ultimately abandoned.

Van Utrecht reiterates the journal's non-commercial intent, aiming to provide reliable and controlled information on a subject often misrepresented. The goal is to build a trustworthy foundation for future researchers, emphasizing the importance of detailed source citations for verification. He notes that many ufologists tend to underestimate this responsibility.

Table of Contents

The issue's table of contents lists the following articles:

• WOORD VOORAF (Foreword)
• STATISTIEK IN DE UFOLOGIE (Statistics in Ufology)
• SPOORGEVALLEN IN BELGIE - I: Een overzicht en synthese van de Belgische CE II-rapporten (UFO Trace Cases in Belgium - I: An overview and synthesis of Belgian CE II reports)
• VREEMDE VERSCHIJNSELEN BOVEN VLAANDEREN (Deel 7) (Strange Phenomena Above Flanders - Part 7)
• THE ROTTERDAM TRECOROSS INCIDENT
• RECENTE MELDINGEN (Recent Reports)

Statistics in Ufology

Authored by Henry Kampherbeek, this article critically examines the application of statistics in ufology. Kampherbeek points out that while many researchers attempt to place the UFO phenomenon within an exact framework using statistics, the availability of data is a significant problem. Most UFO literature contains statistics based on a relatively small group of reported cases, which may not accurately reflect the overall phenomenon. The core issue is the 'reporting probability' – the chance that a phenomenon with certain characteristics will be reported to the right people or organizations.

Kampherbeek identifies three categories of reasons why a sighting might not be reported:
1. The nature of the sighting itself, making it seem too ridiculous to report.
2. The witness's personal characteristics or circumstances.
3. The lack of a suitable outlet for the witness to report their story.

He argues that factors like the color of an object could influence reporting rates, potentially rendering statistics on colors unreliable. He also discusses how personal traits and societal factors (like government debunking policies) can affect reporting. The presence of UFO researchers in an area can artificially inflate the number of reported cases, creating a false impression of higher 'UFO activity'.

Kampherbeek expresses skepticism about the reliability of many UFO statistics due to these distortions. He proposes that research should focus on understanding and quantifying 'reporting probability'. He suggests two avenues for research: comparing cases reported quickly with those reported after a long delay to identify factors influencing reluctance, and overlaying maps of UFO sightings with data on population density and the presence of researchers to understand correlations.

He concludes that statistical research in ufology must be approached with great caution but is not entirely hopeless. The article cites research by Persinger and Accetta, which suggests a correlation between UFO reports and geophysical properties, noting that such factors might be less influenced by the reporting process itself.

UFO Trace Cases in Belgium - I

This section, authored by Wim Van Utrecht, provides an overview and synthesis of Belgian CE II (physical trace) reports. The introduction emphasizes the importance of trace cases in UFO theory formation, offering tangible evidence that suggests the phenomenon is not purely imaginary but has material aspects that can interact with the environment.

However, the article questions the reliability of these trace cases when viewed individually, asking if they are well-documented and as convincing as claimed. The analysis of Belgian trace cases, according to the author, yields a 'sad balance' similar to studies conducted abroad.

The article states that its main component is a chronological overview of these cases, with each entry including a description, the cited source, commentary, and an SVL evaluation. The inspiration for this section comes from a study titled "Belgique. Cas avec Traces" by Jacques Bonabot, published in the Bulletin du GESAG.

A definition of a 'trace case' is provided, based on Maurizio Verga's definition: any event involving the discovery of traces on the ground (vegetation or other materials) and/or the discovery of substances, linked to the 'UFO phenomenon'. This link can be made by witnesses or researchers.

The article explicitly excludes cases involving physiological effects or electromagnetic effects from this overview.

Chronological Overview of Belgian Trace Cases:

• 1811, Antwerp: A fireball exploded, dropping a gelatinous substance. Details are scarce, and a natural anomaly (meteor) is not ruled out. SVL Evaluation: Insufficient (Meteor).
• 1819-11-02, Blankenberge: A red rain fell, analyzed by chemists who found it contained cobalt salts, though the exact nature remains unclear. SVL Evaluation: Natural Anomaly.
• 1909, Adinkerke: Ted Philips mentions a photograph of a trace in Belgium, but provides no reference for further investigation. SVL Evaluation: Insufficient.
• 1946/1947, Vrouweneekhoek, Sint-Niklaas: A 19-year-old witness reported seeing a creature and a disc-shaped object. A burnt, trapezoidal trace was found in the grass. The case was deemed 'insufficient' by the SPW due to the location now being occupied by a building, though it is considered 'interesting'. SVL Evaluation: Insufficient (Interesting).
• 1947-03, Wulvergem: A hunter claimed to have shot at a fireball that exploded, leaving a circle of burnt grass. An investigation by GESAG correspondent Paul Carissimo found that the hunter later admitted the story was a fabrication. SVL Evaluation: Mystification.
• 1947-08, Jalhay: A student reported seeing a large, circular, burnt trace (15m diameter) in a meadow. The edges of the trace were sharply defined, with vegetation half-charred. The witness recalled a land-based machine nearby. The local gendarmerie archives from that period were destroyed, and local inhabitants had no recollection of the event. The case is considered potentially fabricated by the student. SVL Evaluation: Mystification.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the physical evidence of UFO phenomena, specifically ground traces and unusual substances. The journal maintains a stance of critical investigation, emphasizing the need for reliable data, thorough documentation, and cautious interpretation of statistical evidence. The editorial highlights the challenges of obtaining accurate data and the potential for misinterpretation, advocating for a rigorous, evidence-based approach to the study of UFOs. The inclusion of historical cases and detailed source citations underscores the commitment to building a credible body of knowledge for future researchers.

Title: VREEMDE VERSCHIJNSENSELEN BOVEN VLAANDEREN (DEEL 7)
Issue: Part 7
Date: April 1951 (as inferred from content and references)
Publisher: SVLT (implied by references to SVLT issues)
Country: Belgium
Language: Dutch

This issue of the series "Strange Phenomena Above Flanders" by Jacques Bonabot continues its detailed examination of unusual aerial sightings and encounters reported in the Belgian region of Flanders. This installment focuses on events and reports from April 1950 through April 1951, building upon previous parts of the series.

Article 1: Terrest Incident (Late 1951)

The issue begins by detailing a significant encounter that allegedly occurred in Terrest around October or November of 1951. The witness, referred to as Mr. H., was accompanied by his wife when they observed a red fiery ball descending from the sky. The object, described as a typical flying saucer with a spherical top and flattened bottom, landed in the Sleepstraat on four visible landing legs. The intense heat radiating from the craft made it difficult to approach. As Mr. H. attempted to get closer, red light beams, approximately 15 cm in diameter, shot out from the object's center, striking the ground about 10 meters from his feet. The witness reported that the craft opened like a St. Jacob's shell, revealing seven red beings, each about 80 cm tall, with large heads and eyes. One of the beings was observed interacting with a landing leg, while others sat on the edge of the craft. After about 20 seconds on the ground, the object ascended vertically and flew off towards the east. The incident occurred when the local cinema was emptying, leading to other witnesses potentially observing a red glow in the sky, though they may not have seen the object itself. Four blackened oval impressions, each about 15 cm in diameter, were found at the landing site, forming a square approximately 1.5 meters in size. The witness's wife reportedly suffered a decline in health after the incident, experiencing unusual bleeding during her menstruation and later undergoing several operations.

The article notes that this case was summarized from an interview conducted by SOBEPS investigators (Collen and Vertongen) in 1977, with the original interview typed by Luc Devlincke. The text also references previous publications of this case in SVLT and Flying Saucer Review, noting slight discrepancies.

Article 2: Bouffioulx Incident (May 16, 1953)

This section recounts the experience of Hermann Chermann, a photographer from Bouffioulx, who was returning home by car on May 16, 1953, around 8 PM. He observed a smoke plume rising above Blanche-Borne, near Couillet. The spiral movement of the smoke caught his attention. Upon stopping his car, he exited to get a better view, hoping to capture an original subject for an international photography contest in Paris. He described the smoke plume opening at the top into a brilliant circle surrounded by a rainbow-colored band, accompanied by a soft, regular humming sound. The object then began to rock, producing a sound reminiscent of a metal plate used to simulate thunder on stage, but softer. Chermann took his first photograph as the object moved away, becoming an even surface. He managed to take a second photo before the object suddenly disappeared without a trace, leaving only a wisp of smoke that quickly dissipated. The article includes a drawing based on Chermann's photographs.

Chermann stated he could not have imagined seeing a flying saucer. The following day, he learned that high-ranking individuals in Charleroi had witnessed the same spectacle and used the term "flying saucer." A week later, at a dinner, an invited regent confirmed having been a witness. Technicians from the meteorological station in Villacoublay reportedly identified the object after the photos were published, having also observed it without being able to identify it.

An investigation by the Brussels group SOEEPS 19 years later (in 1972) yielded a report that differed slightly from the newspaper article. This report mentioned possible traces. Hermann Chermanne, a professional photographer and correspondent for a major Belgian newspaper, was returning to Charleroi on May 16, 1953, around 5:30 PM, on the road to Bouffioulx. He heard a peculiar noise, described as the rattling of a metal plate, accompanied by short explosions like machine-gun fire. He turned and saw a large, shiny object with a whitish halo in the northwest, moving upwards against a blue sky. White particles fell from the object, which left a trail of blue and white smoke. The object had emerged from behind trees on a hilly terrain. It climbed slowly and, without losing its composure, Chermann took two photos of the phenomenon. The ascent involved a rotating movement, making the object appear oval and then circular. It then hovered for about twenty seconds, the sound fading until it stopped completely. The object then accelerated and disappeared silently in a southeasterly direction. The smoke trail remained visible for a short time but then vanished. Another witness, Roger Michel, a carpenter from Bouffioulx, also saw the object from Chamborgneau, about 1500 meters away, describing it as silent and of unknown character. Numerous people in the region reportedly heard a dull but powerful bang at the time of the phenomenon.

Chermann was later interrogated by military authorities in Brussels. He acknowledged observing something unknown but refused to call it a "flying saucer." He heard that strange traces were found where the object seemed to have come from. The article thanks an anonymous individual for providing this information.

Dhr. G.C., a retired engineer involved in public works near Bouffioulx, became interested in the case. He discovered that if the object had landed, it likely did so in an open area near the road of Pays-Bayard, on the border of Couillet and Bouffioulx, in a hamlet called "La Sibérie." This area is now a purification station for lime water. Dhr. G.C. found no traces on the ground or on the nearby poplars. However, he later noticed that these poplars, about a dozen of them, seemed to lose their leaves faster than other trees and eventually withered. He speculated that this might be due to the lime-rich water from the purification station, but questioned why only these specific poplars were affected while the surrounding abundant vegetation remained intact.

A map of the observation site is included, showing the location of the phenomenon, the witness, geological features, the Sambre river, a railway, and a high-voltage line.

Commentary: The article notes that it is premature to assume a connection between the withering poplars and the Chermann sighting. Jacques Bonabot suggests industrial pollution as a more likely cause for the local ecological drama. UFO researchers Claude Mauge and Jacques Scornaux agree with this hypothesis. The SVL suggests considering a natural cause, such as a specific tree disease, while not entirely ruling out a physiological cause.

Article 3: Jacques Bonabot's Series - Part 7 (Continuing the Chronicle)

This section continues Jacques Bonabot's ongoing series on strange phenomena above Flanders, extending the timeline to April 1951. He reiterates his call for other Belgian groups and readers to contribute any old sightings from their archives to complete the chronological overview, including religious apparitions and sun miracles.

Brugge Incident (April 1950): The article references a report from Jimmy Guieu's book "Les soucoupes volantes viennent d'un autre monde," which mentions an English newspaper reporting a saucer landing in Brugge. However, research in Belgian newspapers of that time yielded no results. The article suggests that Guieu's information, often taken from French press and not always verified, might be inaccurate. It also mentions Guieu's defense of Frank Fontaine's experiences, which were later admitted to be a hoax.

Schoten Incident (May 1950): Edgar Simons reported seeing a strange light in the sky in Schoten. The light moved horizontally westward and then suddenly disappeared. During its flight, the light increased in brightness, resembling a bright star. The sighting lasted only about two seconds.

Putte Incident (Summer 1950): Lutgarde Torfs reported a sighting by her mother-in-law in Putte, Antwerp province. A witness observed a yellow-copper colored cylinder or rod, about 15 cm by 1 meter, which hovered for about 15 seconds before moving eastward. The object was estimated to be between 7500 and 8000 meters high.

Koksijde Incident (Summer 1950): Mr. Schmidt observed three light points hovering motionlessly above the beach in Koksijde for 30 minutes before moving away in a northeasterly direction.

Brugge Incident (October 1950): Ted Bloecher, an American researcher, mentioned a Belgian case with occupants for Brugge. An article in the Brugge weekly "Burgerwelzijn" claimed a flying saucer had landed in the city center two weeks prior. The report stated that 26 "living beings," believed to be Martians, were taken to a camp in Sint-Kruis for inspection. The photo accompanying the article showed a "large, flat, circular object with peculiar protrusions on top," surrounded by inhabitants. Another photo showed the leader of the crew in a rubber suit with breathing apparatus.

Commentary on Brugge Incident: The article suggests that the Brugge case might be a misinterpretation and distortion of information, possibly conflating a report about the Sint-Kruis prisoner camp with the arrival of Sinterklaas (St. Nicholas), a popular figure in Belgium. The mention of a "flying saucer" is questioned in this context. The report from "Burgerwelzijn" was translated into English, potentially contributing to confusion.

Maldegem Incident (Late Summer 1950): Willy Van Canneyt, then 8-10 years old, and his sister Yvette observed a disc rotating on its axis. The upper part was flat, and the lower part was curved. Short, narrow, grayish light rays were seen on the outer edge of the disc, appearing as pulsating stems. The object moved horizontally from west to east, passing almost directly overhead at an estimated height of 4000 to 6000 meters. The sighting lasted about three minutes. The object's shape was described as clear with sharp contours. The article includes a sketch and commentary by Willy Van Canneyt.

Commentary on Maldegem Incident: Willy Van Canneyt was a collaborator with the GESAG directorate in 1972-1973. The Maldegem phenomenon remains classified as unidentified in the GESAG files.

Pamel Incident (April 21, 1951): The Gent newspaper "Het Volk" reported a strange object seen above Pamel. Several people observed a red disc moving at high speed. The object slowed down, described a large circle, changed color from red to blue-white, and then disintegrated into fire streaks. The article notes that the facts were recorded in Belgian dossiers with the date "April 1951." Considering the time of day and the phenomenon's behavior, the disintegration of a meteoroid in the dense layers of the atmosphere is considered a possible explanation.

Notes and References

The issue concludes with a section listing references and notes (numbered 64-71), citing books, articles, and personal communications that support the reported cases. These include works by Jimmy Guieu, Edgar Simons, Lutgarde Torfs, Jean Dohmen, Ted Bloecher, and Willy Van Canneyt, as well as publications from GESAG bulletins and local newspapers.

Editor's Note

The editorial note states that the articles in this series aim to provide a faithful account of unusual observations as reported by witnesses. It advises readers to consider that the estimated dimensions and distances mentioned may not be reliable indicators for further research.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The series consistently presents a chronological compilation of UFO sightings and related phenomena in Flanders. The editorial stance appears to be one of careful documentation and analysis, presenting witness accounts, newspaper reports, and archival findings. While acknowledging the intriguing nature of many cases, the articles also explore potential explanations, including misidentifications of natural phenomena (meteors, atmospheric effects), industrial pollution, and even hoaxes. The emphasis is on presenting the available information and allowing readers to draw their own conclusions, while also highlighting cases that remain unexplained or particularly compelling, such as the Terrest landing and the Bouffioulx photographic case. The series encourages further research and contribution from the public and other organizations to build a more complete historical record.

This issue of the SVL-Journal, dated April 1985, is primarily focused on the completion of a documentary about a notable UFO incident and delves into the complexities of ufological research and reporting.

The Rotterdam Trecross Incident Documentary

The lead article announces the completion of a 25-minute documentary titled "THE ROTTERDAM TRECOROSS INCIDENT." This production, by SVL-medewerker Martin Holwerda from Rotterdam, investigates a UFO sighting that occurred in the autumn of 1979. The documentary features a prevalent English commentary with contrasting male and female voices. It reconstructs a 10-minute UFO observation using the accounts of 35 witnesses, gathered through an advertisement. The goal was to establish a consistent description of the object's size, shape, and flight behavior that satisfied all witnesses. Four observation sites were used for filming, and seven witnesses collaborated on the project. The film incorporates 50 documents, including maps, drawings, and schematics of the object's model, along with 40 settings, such as witness locations. Original sound and specially composed synthesizer music by Marnix Holwerda are also featured. The production, which includes the scenario and text by Martin Holwerda, is a semi-professional U-Matic videoproduction in color. It is available for purchase or rent through M&M Productions in Delft, Netherlands. VHS copies are readily available, with Betamax and Video 2000 also offered. The purchase price is f 100,-, with a rental option for f 25,- per week and a f 75,- deposit. All transactions require prepayment via postal order or letter. Orders for U-Matic cassettes incur an additional f 55,- charge due to the high cost of the material.

A accompanying photograph displays a scale model of the object as observed by several people above Rotterdam and its surroundings in September 1979. Martin Holwerda, who witnessed the phenomenon on the evening of September 27, 1979, built this model based on collected witness statements and his own recollections. To date, no definitive explanation has been found for this series of unusual observations.

Recent Sightings

This section presents recent UFO/IFC (Unidentified Flying Object/Unidentified Flying Craft) sightings reported within the last six months prior to the publication date of the SVL Tijdschrift. Each report includes an evaluation by the SVL, marked with '=' for definitive conclusions and '-' for uncertain estimations, based on collected documents and data.

GOES (Zeeland) - 03/02/1985 (around 4 AM)

J.T.F., a Scottish violinist working as a street musician in Antwerp, provided a handwritten account of an experience he and friends had on February 3rd. While walking in the polders near Goes, they observed an object descending from the sky in a waggling manner, similar to a falling airplane. The object, estimated to be about 7 miles away, moved at a constant speed. It appeared to be roughly the same size as a plane and left a smoke trail. The phenomenon disappeared without a trace or sound. News reports that evening from Antwerp made no mention of any unusual events.

SVL Evaluation: METEOR OR LIGHTBALL

The SVL's evaluation suggests the description aligns with that of a meteor or lightball. The waggling movement might indicate the latter is more probable. The evaluation notes the less-than-ideal conditions, suggesting the witnesses might have been recovering from a heavy Saturday night, and the walk was intended to help them regain their senses.

Statistics and UFOLOGY

This article by Henry Kampherbeek addresses the scarcity of exact, quantitative information in UFO research, which is a source of frustration for researchers aiming to establish a more rigorous framework, including statistical analysis.

Statistics

While UFO literature contains numerous statistics, the availability of material is a significant problem. A large share of cases remains unknown, limiting statistical compilations to a smaller group of reported incidents. This means statistics can only show correlations within known cases, not necessarily for all UFO phenomena.

UFOs and UFO Reports

Kampherbeek outlines three categories of reasons why a strange aerial phenomenon might not be reported:

1. Nature of the observation: The case might be too ridiculous to report.
2. Witness's personal situation/characteristics: Factors related to the individual might deter reporting.
3. Witness's inability to drop the story: This is closely linked to the presence of investigators.

The hypothesis that entity-cases (e.g., 'little-green-men') are underrepresented due to their perceived ridiculousness is considered reasonable. However, the influence of factors like object color on reporting chance is also considered, suggesting that statistics on colors might be practically useless.

Profession and psychological characteristics of the witness can also play a role. For instance, US pilots historically showed resistance to reporting UFO observations, possibly due to government debunking policies, leading to their underrepresentation in statistics.

The third category, where a witness cannot drop their story, is linked to the presence of researchers. Areas with many researchers may appear to have higher UFO activity simply because more cases are reported and investigated.

Kampherbeek defines "reporting chance" as the probability that a phenomenon with specific characteristics is reported to the appropriate persons or organizations, who then properly handle the information.

What Determines the Reporting Chance?

This question is explored in relation to the three categories mentioned earlier, but also considers external factors. The article references research by Persinger and Accetta, which suggests a statistical correlation between UFO report quantities and geophysical properties. However, it's argued that a witness is unlikely to report a UFO solely because of the site's geophysical properties. Instead, if more observations are reported in areas with specific geophysical properties, it suggests a real correlation.

Geophysical properties are generally not related to the reporting process itself, unless an area is known as a 'UFO-area' or special zone, like the Hessdalen valley in Norway, where observation posts lead to a higher reporting chance. Most UFO information is likely distorted by various factors, making the reporting chance problem urgent.

Kampherbeek proposes two research suggestions:

1. Compare early vs. late reports: Analyze cases reported soon after occurrence versus those reported decades later. Differences might explain lower reporting chances.
2. Map distributions: Compare maps of UFO geographical distributions with population density and researcher presence to understand their relationship.

These suggestions aim to guide research into factors influencing the reporting process, emphasizing that while statistical research should be approached with caution, it should not be abandoned entirely.

Letters to the Editor

This section features correspondence from readers, including a letter from Wim van Utrecht responding to Jan Heering's previous letter and providing further examples regarding the reliability of Jacques Vallée's catalogue "A century of UFO landings (1868-1968)".

Case Analysis by Wim van Utrecht:

• La Roche en Brénil, 05.11.54: Assessed as a hoax, mixing true details with an invented story. Investigations by G.A.B.R.I.E.L. and the Vimana 21 group are ongoing.
• Mendoza, 01.09.68 (or 31.08.68?): Considered "suspect" by J.U. Pereira, based on Argentinian and Brazilian newspapers and Vallée's catalogue. It is noted that "when a case (...) comes into existence, it never disappears from the literature."
• Albiosc_photo, 23.03.74: Heering's hope regarding this case is deemed false. No denial has been published in subsequent issues of LDLN. H. Julien briefly mentions a "luminous phenomenon of Barjols - 1974" as a classical photo, though dubious to many local ufologists.

Van Utrecht also references a study on humanoids published in FSR (Vol. 10, No 1) and a reader's letter in a later issue (Vol. 10, No 3) that recommended rejecting several cases as probable hoaxes or illusions:

• Rejected as hoaxes: Mertrud (05.10.54), Kearney (05.11.57), Serra da Guardunha (24.09.54), Sainte Marie d'Herblay (16.10.54), Erbray (12.10.54).
• Recommended for rejection as probable hoaxes or illusions: Jussey (01.10.54), Loctudy (05.10.54), Roverbella (05.10.54), Brovst (12.09.53), Greenhills (25.08.55), Everittstown (06.11.57), Province of Salta (24.10.60).

Furthermore, the reader expressed reservations about two cases:

• Montluçon, 10.10.54: Initially questioned due to a single witness. Later information suggests the witness was a victim of hoaxers, with the date being October 12th.
• Erchin Wood (Lewarde), 14.10.54: Questioned due to a single witness and no "object" seen. It is now considered a misinterpretation, with the true date being October 22nd.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue highlights the ongoing effort by the SVL to investigate and document UFO phenomena, aiming for a more scientifically rigorous approach to ufology. The publication of a documentary and the detailed analysis of witness reports and case reliability underscore this commitment. The discussion on statistical analysis and reporting chances reflects a critical engagement with the challenges of gathering and interpreting UFO data. The letters to the editor demonstrate a collaborative effort among researchers to scrutinize and validate reported cases, emphasizing the importance of critical evaluation and the potential for hoaxes and misinterpretations within the field.