UFO Forum - 1973 - No 2

Magazine Overview

Title: UFO FORUM
Issue: 2
Volume/Year: 1973
Publisher: Norsk UFO Center
Country: Norway
Language: Norwegian
Price: KR. 15,-

This issue of UFO Forum, published by Norsk UFO Center, is dedicated to reporting and analyzing UFO sightings and related phenomena. It features a collection of reports from various parts of Norway, spanning late 1972 and early 1973, alongside editorial commentary and discussions on UFO research methodologies.

Editorial Stance and Critique

The editorial section opens with a critical commentary on the tendency to adopt certain aspects of the American UFO research approach, specifically referencing 'Project Blue Book'. It then delves into a critique of an article published in 'Astronomisk Tidsskrift' (Nr. 3-72) by Ole Peder Sveen. The editorial argues that Sveen's article, while ostensibly about UFOs, relies heavily on the 'Condon Report' and attempts to explain away sightings with conventional phenomena, often misinterpreting or dismissing credible reports. The critique highlights that Sveen's approach overlooks or downplays cases that remain genuinely unexplained despite thorough investigation and ample data. The editorial expresses dismay that a scientific journal would present information that contradicts available facts and engage in the ridicule of credible witnesses, a tactic it associates with the 'Blue Book' policy.

UFO Sightings and Reports

The magazine presents a series of detailed UFO sighting reports from across Norway:

• The Observation Wave (October-November 1972): This section expands on earlier reports of a significant observation wave over Trøndelag. It includes a report from VG (31-10-1972) about a 'Rørvik man' who observed a mysterious, brightly lit, half-moon-shaped object that hovered near his car. A pilot from Sandnessjøen corroborated the description, stating he saw the same phenomenon. Another report mentions an anonymous pilot who had previously observed similar objects flying alongside his plane over Vestfjorden.

• Modum Sighting (October 19, 1972): Erik Dahl reported seeing a bright, spherical object moving rapidly from north to south over Øståsen. The object was described as the size of the moon and illuminated the surrounding clouds.

• Lierdalen Sighting (October 20, 1972): Inger Halvorsen described a luminous object near Reistad and Sørumsåsen that remained stationary with a blinking light before moving and disappearing behind Askanten. She emphasized it was not a conventional aircraft.

• Gullaug Sighting (October 23, 1972): A woman observed a large, luminous object over Gullaug. Using binoculars, she saw two distinct, colored shapes, one like a ring and the other like two discs. The object moved towards the north and gradually faded.

• Sande Sighting (October 23, 1972): Johan Jakobsen and two friends observed a bright light, like a powerful spotlight, hovering over Holmestrandfjorden. The object moved slowly eastward over the fjord.

• Fossbakken Sighting (November 1, 1972): Two individuals witnessed a silver, cylindrical object in the air. They initially mistook it for the sun or a reflection but realized it was a distinct object. It appeared to be composed of two cylinders and moved north-eastward.

• Bud Sighting (November 1, 1972): A man reported a luminous object moving from east to south at high altitude, described as having a brightness 8-10 times that of a normal star. The object appeared triangular and its brightness varied.

• Byåsen Sighting (November 16, 1972): A 15-year-old student observed two unidentified objects flying at high speed towards him over Havstad. The objects were described as inverted deep plates with a metallic sheen, surrounded by a faint yellow and red light. They were estimated to be at an altitude of 200-300 meters.

• Stavanger Sighting (November XX, 1972): Einar Markèn and two friends reported seeing a luminous sphere that moved erratically over Stavanger. They ruled out helicopters or planes due to the lack of engine noise.

• Valdres Sighting (November 26, 1972): O. A. Skavelden reported observing two objects, one white and one red, near Leira. The white object moved with a steady course and increasing altitude, while the red object exhibited a weak pendular motion. The observation lasted from 6:50 AM to 7:20 AM.

• Tønsberg Sighting (January 11, 1973): This report, taken from 'Verdens Gang', describes a strange object observed over the Oslo Fjord for nearly three hours. It was described as spherical with two blinking protrusions and multiple colors. It hovered over the Esso refinery before moving rapidly out over the fjord and stopping again for over an hour.

Analysis and Commentary

• Norsk UFO Center's Commentary: The center provides brief comments on some reports, often noting that investigations are ongoing or that information is still being gathered. For the Byåsen sighting, they mention the difficulty in obtaining the witness's name due to fear of ridicule.

• Gotfred Tandè-Petersen Sighting: A significant portion of the magazine is dedicated to a detailed report and analysis of a sighting by Gotfred Tandè-Petersen, a former flight mechanic and technician. He reported observing a large, structured craft with windows and openings emitting blue-white flames over the Leirfossen power plant near Trondheim on New Year's Day 1972. The craft hovered for several minutes before accelerating rapidly and disappearing. Norsk UFO Center conducted a thorough investigation and found no reason to doubt the report, noting Tandè-Petersen's credible background and consistent testimony.

• Request for French Translators: The magazine includes a call for readers who can translate French to assist Norsk UFO Center with translating valuable material from the French UFO organization GEPA.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the prevalence of UFO sightings in Norway, the detailed documentation of these events, and the critical examination of how such reports are handled by both the public and scientific media. The editorial stance is clearly in favor of serious investigation into UFO phenomena, expressing frustration with dismissive attitudes and conventional explanations that fail to account for the evidence. The magazine aims to provide a platform for credible reports and encourage further research into unexplained aerial phenomena.

Title: NORSK UFO FORUM
Issue: 2
Volume: 73
Publication Date: 1973 (raw date '73')
Publisher: Norsk UFO Forum
Country of Publication: Norway
Original Language: Norwegian
Cover Headline: UTLANDET (Abroad)

This issue of Norsk UFO Forum focuses on UFO reports from abroad, specifically highlighting cases from Sweden and Denmark. The magazine presents a selection of detailed witness accounts, investigations, and observations, aiming to provide a comprehensive overview of unidentified aerial phenomena encountered in these countries.

Reports from Sweden

Kristinehamn (August 4, 1972)

A report from Nya Wermlands-Tidningen details an observation by Arvid Andersson in Rudskoga, Kristinehamn. He described a luminous object, resembling a "saucer with edges," moving rapidly towards the north-west at an estimated 15:00 on a Friday. Andersson observed the object from a haystack, noting a raised section like a dome on top with small, visible "windows" or "glugger." The object flashed silver in the sun and moved at high speed, disappearing after a couple of minutes. This report was credited to Norrköpings UFO-Förening and Riksorganisationen UFO Sverige (Report No. 003).

Eskilstuna (September 12, 1972)

Eskilstuna-Kurien reported an incident where two young people, 15-year-old Ilona Malmgren and 19-year-old Tatsou Suzuki from Japan, observed several "flying saucers" passing over the sky at high speed around 21:15 on a Tuesday evening. The witnesses were on the balcony of a holiday home when they saw the "unknown and frightening" phenomenon. They described the objects as luminous and moving in a southerly direction. The objects were perceived as either low-flying or extremely large, moving silently. The Swedish Air Force reported no flights in the area, and the objects were speculated to be meteorites by the Air Force, though the witnesses' descriptions suggested otherwise. Håkan Blomqvist from Södertälje UFO-Center investigated the observation, and a report was to be published in SUFO's UFO-Bulletin and UFO-Information. The objects were described as 5-6 in number and "half-moon shaped." This report was credited to Norrköpings UFO-Förening - Riksorganisationen UFO Sverige (Report No. 026).

Nol (September 22, 1972)

According to Trollhättans Tidning, something unusual was observed near the power plant in Nol on a Friday morning. Witnesses Jack Eliasson and Karl-Olof Rennstrøm from HSB's service reported seeing a "metallic glistening object with a tube shape (rocket form)" passing over the sky from west to east. The sky was clear, and both witnesses were considered credible. The report also mentions an earlier sighting by Fru Tekla Eriksson in Romelanda on September 2-3, 1969, of a similar "disk-shaped object" and an incident involving Ann-Lis Danielsson in Tjuvkil in March 1967. This report was credited to Norrköpings UFO-Förening - Riksorganisationen UFO Sverige (Report No. 027).

Värnamo (November 10, 1972)

Värnamo Nyheter reported a personal visit by Anders Ahlström and Anneli Ekstrøm to witnesses Margit Johansson and her daughter. Margit Johansson, who previously dismissed UFO talk, described seeing a luminous object from her kitchen window early on a Friday morning. Initially mistaking it for moonlight, she soon realized it was a large, "almost rectangular" object, narrower at the ends, emitting a "strong, yellow-white glow" and a "luminous corona" with flames shooting down. The object was observed at a distance of a few kilometers, hovering and swaying. Later, a "round, red-glowing object" was ejected and moved at high speed towards the north-east. Her 13-year-old daughter, Mia, also witnessed the object and was a believer in UFOs. The observation started around 04:45 and lasted for about 1 hour and 45 minutes. The family's Golden Retriever was extremely agitated during the entire observation. The report also mentions a phone interview with Red. Anders Liljegren regarding the dog's behavior, which was also agitated on the night of December 10th. The dog's unusual behavior was noted on November 10th and December 10th, involving restlessness, howling, and looking upwards. The dog is described as sensitive to thunder. The report was credited to Norrköpings UFO-Förening - Riksorganisationen UFO Sverige (Report No. 057).

Further details on Värnamo sighting:

Margit Johansson described the object as "quite large" and "almost rectangular in shape, slightly narrower towards the ends." It emitted a "strong, yellow-white glow" and had a "luminous corona." Flames were seen shooting down towards the ground. The object was observed over rooftops, possibly a few kilometers away, and seemed to sway sideways. At one point, it appeared to move closer. Later, a "round, red-glowing object" was ejected and moved at high speed towards the north-east. Mia, the daughter, was also a witness and a believer in flying saucers. The observation began around 04:45 and lasted for about 1 hour and 45 minutes. The family dog, a Golden Retriever, became very restless, jumped on beds, howled, and looked upwards. The dog's agitation started around 16:45 and continued throughout the observation. The dog's behavior was similar on the night of December 10th. The dog is described as generally nervous and sensitive to thunder. The report was credited to Norrköpings UFO-Förening - Riksorganisationen UFO Sverige (Report No. 107).

Further details on Värnamo sighting (continued):

Margit Johansson stated that the object moved slowly and steadily, "like gliding through the air." She noted two red lights on the rear of the object, one with a steady red glow, and the other blinking. She described a row of "windows" or "vents" along the side, which were square and separated by "sprosser" (mullions or bars). A "whitish light" streamed from these windows. The object moved in a north-south direction at an estimated altitude of 70-75 degrees above the horizon. The object was observed for a longer period than the witness's daughter. The report also mentions a possible military experiment, questioning if such craft exist. This was credited to Norrköpings UFO-Förening - Riksorganisationen UFO Sverige (Report No. 093).

Reports from Denmark

Næstved (August 13, 1972)

According to Næstved Tidenende, chef Erik Voltik observed an unknown object over Fakse at 22:30. The object was described as having the shape of a "smaller rocket," approximately 3 meters long and 2 meters wide, and was "silver-grey" with small windows at the bottom. It flew at a low altitude, allowing Voltik to observe it for 3-4 minutes. The object moved from Kalkbruddet towards the old stadium and Fakse. It was estimated to be 100-150 meters away and moved very slowly. The object was "completely silent." SUFO in Copenhagen had received several reports from the time between 21:00 and 23:00. This report was credited to Norrköping UFO-Förening - Riksorganisationen UFO Sverige (Report No. 008).

Dannevirk (August 16, 1972) and Sønderjylland (August 17-18, 1972)

A young couple observed a luminous object between Hammelov and Jernhytt in Sønderjylland around 22:00. The object moved just below the cloud cover at an altitude of approximately 500 meters and emitted several vertical beams of light with brief intervals. The object moved north-south and was silent. The speed was not high, and the observation lasted 10-15 minutes. The light beams were strongest at their origin and weaker further away. The object itself was not seen or heard, only the beams. After about 10 minutes, the object turned east and disappeared towards Marstrup. The airbase at Skrydstrup had no aircraft in the air at that time. This report was credited to Norrköpings UFO-Förening - Riksorganisationen UFO Sverige (Report No. 014).

Reports from Sweden (Continued)

Vallentuna (November 26, 1972)

DN-Stockholm reported on a mysterious, unidentified flying object observed by Agneta Bergkvist in Vallentuna. The object, described as "round in shape and strongly luminous," was seen east of Nygård farm on Sunday evening, November 26th, at 16:15. The object hovered for a long time before red lights began to pulse, and it accelerated rapidly towards the north-east, disappearing behind a cloud bank that turned red. No sound was heard, ruling out aircraft. The weather was calm with a clear sky. This report was credited to Norrköpings UFO-Förening - Riksorganisationen UFO Sverige (Report No. 111).

Motala (December 10, 1972)

Leif Nasslin, a member of UFO-Motala, reported an observation made around 16:00 on a Sunday afternoon. While walking home from the Charlottenborg shopping center, he noticed a "spool-shaped object" moving in a circular path. It came from the direction of Fornasa, passed over his house, and turned towards Linköping. The object was distinguished by a "blinking, strong red light." Nasslin initially thought it might be an aircraft but heard no sound. He estimated the object to be no more than 400 meters above the ground. He observed the object for about 3-4 minutes. He noted that a bus passing nearby did not seem to be related to the phenomenon. He also mentioned seeing a similar object in 1970. This report was credited to Norrköpings UFO-Förening - Riksorganisationen UFO Sverige (Report No. 112).

Nordmaling (November 27, 1972)

According to Västerbottens Folkblad, student Eva Marie Westerlund observed a mysterious object passing by Levarskolen in Nordmaling at approximately 14:40. She described the object as "disc-shaped, thickest in the middle," with a size estimated at least 10 meters in diameter, at an altitude of about 200 meters. It emitted a "yellow-white glow" and suddenly stopped for a few seconds before accelerating rapidly. The speed was lower than that of an aircraft. Eva Marie called her mother, Gun-Britt Westerlund, who also saw a luminous object moving towards the towns of Pre-Kraken. Later, she saw another luminous point in the same direction. From her balcony, she observed a "luminous sphere" moving in a slightly diagonal course towards her. The object disappeared behind a forest about two kilometers away. Fru Westerlund recalled hearing a strange humming sound before seeing the object. The Swedish Weather Service in Östersund confirmed that the object could not have been a Swedish weather balloon, as such balloons, while capable of producing strange light phenomena, do not exhibit the observed behavior or characteristics. This report was investigated by Alf Göran Lindberg from Umeå and credited to Norrköpings UFO-Förening - Riksorganisationen UFO Sverige (Report No. 113).

Swedish UFO Film Shown to Press

Norrort reported on November 30, 1972, about the first Swedish UFO film presented by the Riksorganisationen UFO-Sverige. The film was taken by Thomas Petersson in Taby in July 1968. Petersson encountered three flying objects in a triangular formation while driving. He stopped his car and filmed two of the objects. This film, the first taken in Sweden, was shown to the press. UFO-Sverige acquired the film in 1970. Petersson stated he had seen flying saucers before, but people are generally skeptical. He described the objects as giving off regular reflections, unlike a seagull. One object accelerated upwards at extreme speed, a maneuver impossible for an aircraft. The objects on film are visible for only 7 seconds. The objects were seen in July 1968, and many questions remain unanswered. This was credited to Norrköpings UFO-Förening - Riksorganisationen UFO Sverige.

Jetfighter Pursues Seven Flying Saucers

On April 12, 1969, at the airbase in Kuopio, Finland, pilot Jouka Kuronen of a Fouga Magister jet and other witnesses, including ground personnel and radar operators, observed seven "flying saucers" or "yellow balls/discs." Around 12:00, with clear weather and a north wind of 100 knots, Kuronen was preparing for takeoff when the control tower instructed him to observe approximately seven "balloons" above. The pilot ascended and observed the objects hovering silently at an altitude of 1500-3000 meters. Radar control confirmed their presence. The objects began to move northwards and disappeared. The report notes that similar objects were observed in Vaasa around the same time, and given the distance of approximately 300 km between Kuopio and Vaasa, the speed of the objects must have been many times the speed of sound.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the widespread nature of UFO sightings across Scandinavia (primarily Sweden and Denmark) and the consistent descriptions of objects exhibiting non-conventional characteristics. The editorial stance appears to be one of serious investigation and documentation of these phenomena, presenting witness testimonies and details of observations without immediate dismissal. There is an emphasis on the silence of the objects, their luminous qualities, and their ability to perform maneuvers beyond known aircraft capabilities. The magazine also touches upon the challenges of obtaining evidence and overcoming public skepticism. The reports are meticulously credited to various UFO organizations, indicating a collaborative effort in collecting and disseminating this information.

Norsk UFO Forum, issue 2-73, published in August 1971, is a Norwegian magazine dedicated to the study of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs). This issue critically examines the scientific approach to UFO phenomena, featuring articles on classification, analysis, and the challenges faced by researchers.

Article: "Gjenstandene var ikke Fly" (The Objects Were Not Aircraft)

This section begins with a report from Bergen, detailing observations of constructed objects that moved against a strong wind, officially classified as unidentified. The report notes the objects were clearly visible in the moonlight, hovered, and emitted a faint sound similar to a vacuum cleaner. The author criticizes an article in "Astronomisk Tidsskrift" which, despite acknowledging the existence of the objects, attributed them to misperceptions, even suggesting the observer mistook them for rocket stages. The author defends the observers, expressing shock at the "absurd and insinuating postulates" made by the critic and highlighting the distress caused to the observers by the article.

The article further criticizes "Astronomisk Tidsskrift" for its lack of scientific standard and for distorting documented facts. It argues that the magazine's attempt to discredit respectable citizens through baseless insinuations goes too far, introducing a social and legal aspect to the UFO debate and calling for protection for future observers.

Article: "Om Klassifisering og Analyse av UFO-Rapporter" (On Classification and Analysis of UFO Reports) by K. STENØDEGÅRD

This article addresses "exclusionists" who attempt to reduce the UFO problem to mundane explanations. It discusses the work of Dr. Donald Menzel, an American scientist who has dedicated significant effort to finding conventional explanations for UFO reports, sometimes resorting to what the author deems "absurd" statements. The article then shifts to the classification system used by the U.S. Air Force's Project Blue Book.

Between 1947 and the time of the report, the Air Force investigated 1593 UFO reports. These were classified into categories: Balloons (18.51%), Aircraft (11.76%), Astronomical Objects (14.20%), and Others (including light streaks, fog, birds, temperature inversions, reflections, etc. - 4.21%), Deception (1.66%), and Reports with insufficient data (22.72%). A significant portion, 26.94%, remained "Unknown."

Even in cases classified as "Possible" or "Likely," Project Blue Book's consultants, led by Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, often felt they had identified the reported UFO. However, the "Unknown" category, representing 26.94% of the investigated reports, was subjected to detailed study regarding shape, color, movement, and timing. Despite this, no significant pattern emerged. The most frequently reported shape was elliptical, and the most common color was white or metallic.

The article notes that UFOs were reported equally during day and night, and their movements encompassed all sixteen cardinal compass directions. Visual sightings from the air accounted for 70% of unknown cases, with 12% from the ground, 10% from radar, and 8% from combined radar and visual observations. Interestingly, twice as many reports came from female observers as from male observers, though for the "Unknown" category, men outnumbered women by 10 to 1.

Two factors remained unexplained: the frequency of observations and their geographical distribution. Despite attempts to correlate these with tides, atomic bomb tests, planetary positions, and weather patterns, no definitive link was found. UFOs were often reported near technical installations like atomic energy plants, harbors, and factories. Conversely, vital military installations like SAC and Air Defense Command produced fewer reports than expected.

The article concludes that if UFOs are not intelligently controlled machines, their distribution should align with population distribution. However, this was not the case. The analysis of UFO observations, including those from other countries, yielded similar results. Therefore, the author posits that UFO reports must be divided into two categories: those that can be explained by conventional phenomena, and those that cannot.

Article: "Mer om Avtrykkene ved Namsenfjorden" (More on the Tracks at Namsenfjorden)

This section discusses a report from "UKEBLADET VI MENN" about mysterious tracks found at Namsenfjorden. The article highlights the skepticism of scientists regarding the tracks. Cand. Real. Knut Gussgard from the Institute for Atomic Energy stated that the radioactive analyses of the tracks contradicted natural laws. He found the results "very mystical" and questioned their scientific value, suggesting potential error sources.

However, the Norsk UFO Center (NUFOC) counters Gussgard's claims, stating that the radioactivity did not "seep away" during analysis. They explain that the delay between the initial detection of radioactivity in the soil samples from the tracks and the subsequent laboratory analysis (which took over a week) led to a significant reduction in the measured radioactivity, making definitive conclusions difficult. The laboratory analysis was therefore deemed "negative." The NUFOC notes a relatively rapid half-life for the detected radioactivity, suggesting it was not natural background radiation.

Furthermore, three reference soil samples were taken, none of which showed any signs of radioactivity. Only when a soil sample from one of the tracks was tested did radioactivity appear. While acknowledging the possibility of coincidence, the NUFOC argues that the evidence points to a non-natural phenomenon.

Article: "Noen Teoretiske Aspekter Angående UFO - Arbeidet" (Some Theoretical Aspects Regarding UFO Work) by Einar A. TERJESEN

Einar A. Terjesen critiques the lack of a clear UFO definition, stating that "UFO" (Unidentified Flying Object) is insufficient. He proposes two relevant definitions: one from the Condon Committee, used by Norges UFO-Informasjon, defining a UFO as an external or internal stimulus that is sufficiently unconventional to cause a report of something in the sky, on the ground, or near the ground that appears to be able to fly. The second definition, from J. Allen Hynek, states that for a phenomenon to be called a UFO, it must remain unidentified after a thorough investigation by competent persons.

Terjesen argues that these definitions point to two different strategies in practical work: one focusing on the observer's reaction, the other on phenomena that remain unidentified. He suggests that neither strategy can be exclusively correct and that the practical work must involve transferring phenomena from the first definition to the second.

He criticizes NUFOC for stating that UFOs are a "real phenomenon" and an "empirical fact." Terjesen contends that what is an empirical fact is the existence of reports, not necessarily the UFO phenomenon itself being inherently unconventional. He suggests that a phenomenon might be conventional but observed under unconventional circumstances.

Terjesen also questions NUFOC's stance on the "uncertainty moment" in scientific research, emphasizing that scientific hypotheses must not contradict existing theories and must be linked to recognized theories and observable data. He argues that the "flying saucer hypothesis" may not meet these criteria.

He believes that for UFOs to be taken seriously by scientists, the hypotheses must be presented within the natural scientific subsystem. He points to the complexity of UFO phenomena, involving both physical and psychological factors, requiring interdisciplinary groups for investigation. He suggests that the UFO problem may have multiple solutions, some physical and some psychological, and that a new method of investigation, involving close cooperation between scientific disciplines, is needed.

Norsk UFO Centers Svar (Norsk UFO Center's Reply)

NUFOC responds to Terjesen's article, clarifying that their previous mention of "Ideology" was not a standalone article but part of an introduction to NUFOC's principled standpoints on UFO issues. They express agreement with many of Terjesen's points and promise a more detailed discussion later.

NUFOC clarifies its position on UFOs being an "empirical fact." They agree that it is the reports themselves that constitute the empirical fact, but cite Professor Wallete's assertion that the sheer volume and consistency of UFO reports warrant treating the phenomenon itself as empirical. They reiterate that while not all UFO reports can be explained, this does not automatically mean the phenomenon is inherently unconventional; it could be a conventional phenomenon observed under unusual conditions.

NUFOC acknowledges that the "flying saucer hypothesis" might not fully align with scientific principles if it contradicts existing theories. They emphasize that for scientific acceptance, hypotheses must be presented within the natural scientific framework. They also agree that the complexity of UFO phenomena requires interdisciplinary approaches and potentially new investigative methods.

Erratum

An erratum corrects a typographical error in a previous issue (Norsk UFO Forum NR. 1-73), specifically a missing "3" in a measurement range for a Philips Radiation Monitor.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue consistently emphasizes a critical and analytical approach to UFO phenomena. It advocates for rigorous scientific methodology, challenges simplistic explanations, and calls for interdisciplinary research. The editorial stance appears to be one of open-minded inquiry, seeking to understand the UFO phenomenon through evidence-based investigation rather than outright dismissal or premature acceptance of unconventional theories. There is a clear distinction made between the existence of UFO reports and the nature of the phenomenon itself, with a call for careful scientific scrutiny of the latter.

Title: NORSK UFO FORUM
Issue: 2-73
Date: 1973
Publisher: NORSK UFO Centers
Country: Norway
Language: Norwegian

This issue of Norsk UFO Forum delves into the complexities of UFO research, scientific methodology, and the societal response to the phenomenon. It features a significant debate on the definition and investigation of UFOs, critiques of scientific attitudes, and reports on specific cases and related publications.

Editorial Response to Einar Terjesen

The lead article is a response from K. Stenødegård of Norsk UFO Centers to Einar Terjesen concerning the definition of UFOs and the approach to studying them. Stenødegård agrees with Terjesen that a researcher must maintain an open mind, considering all theoretical possibilities when investigating a UFO report, including misinterpretations, hoaxes, and psychological phenomena. He emphasizes that this principle applies to the *process* of investigation.

However, Stenødegård strongly disagrees with Terjesen if his views are meant to encompass the *entirety* of the UFO phenomenon complex. He asserts that after filtering out conventional explanations, a residue of UFO reports remains that are characterized by exceptionally solid documentation and a high degree of otherworldliness. In these cases, psychological explanations are ruled out by definition. He notes that while he could provide examples, they are deferred to a later occasion.

Stenødegård states that the sole criterion for the validity of a hypothesis is its heuristic or explanatory value. He argues that the extraterrestrial hypothesis is characterized by this, while other hypotheses have failed due to their own inherent implausibility. He also addresses the 'uncertainty factor,' clarifying that it was not intended as a scientific principle but as a means to highlight the importance of scientific honesty among UFOlogists, contrasting them with those who seemingly prioritize criticizing others for being unscientific.

He concludes by agreeing with the many prominent and honest scientists who state that the UFO phenomenon presents a unique challenge to science. He suggests that the often emotionally driven and unscientific attitude of many scientists towards UFOs might stem from their scientific methods and the history of science itself.

"MOT BEVISST LATTERLIGGJØRELSE" (Against Deliberate Ridicule)

This editorial, also by K.S. (likely K. Stenødegård), addresses the issue of witnesses being ridiculed or persecuted for reporting UFO sightings. It references Professor Dr. James E. McDonald, who frequently emphasized that many credible witnesses, including pilots, suffer in silence after encountering inexplicable objects. These individuals have reportedly faced deliberate ridicule and even persecution from the American Air Force.

The editorial calls for all responsible individuals in Norway to unite in a strong protest against this policy of ridicule and persecution. The aim is to prevent further significant UFO reports from being lost due to witnesses' fear of reprisal from an unenlightened society. The article suggests that UFO organizations should intensify their efforts to provide factual and objective information about unidentified flying objects to both the public and official institutions. Furthermore, it advocates for legal sanctions in cases where respect and responsibility towards fellow citizens are grossly neglected.

Film Report: Trondheim UFO

A color film taken of a cigar-shaped UFO with half-moon wings over Trondheim in October 1972 by Alf Haugan has been developed. Unfortunately, the result is negative due to poor lighting conditions. The article notes that many had predicted this outcome, as the filming took place at night and the object was not particularly bright.

"FAKTA?" - A Recommended Publication

The magazine introduces a Norwegian periodical called "Fakta?" which is described as a journal that bases its content on bringing a rich selection of material on theoretical, philosophical, physical, and psychological aspects of unusual events from around the world. "Fakta?" is the same format as Norsk UFO Forum and is published six times a year, with a subscription price of 20.00 NOK. Orders can be sent to Postboks 2720, 5010 Bergen, with payment also possible via Postgiro account number 32 17 52.

The editor and publisher of "Fakta?" is Asle Overholdt. Norsk UFO Forum recommends "Fakta?" as a valuable supplement that can complement their own publication.

New UFO Reports and Special Editions

It is mentioned that several new UFO sighting reports have come in since the manuscript for this issue was prepared, including a very interesting one from Kristiansand. Due to space limitations, these reports will be deferred to the next issue. The editorial team is currently conducting investigations.

Regarding the "New Year's Wave - 72" (mentioned in the editorial), which would require more than one issue of Norsk UFO Forum to cover adequately, the possibility of publishing it as a special extra issue is being considered. However, due to many ongoing tasks, a date for such a publication cannot be given. In the meantime, interested readers are directed to contact Foreningen UFO-Bergen (Postboks 1155, 5001 Bergen) to order a collection of reports about the "New Year's Wave" from the Bergen area, costing 2.00 NOK, including postage.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue strongly advocates for a rigorous and honest scientific approach to the UFO phenomenon, while simultaneously defending the credibility of witnesses against ridicule. The editorial stance is critical of established scientific institutions that dismiss or marginalize UFO research and witnesses. There is a clear emphasis on the need for open-mindedness in research, coupled with a demand for empirical evidence and logical consistency in explanations. The promotion of "Fakta?" suggests an interest in exploring the broader psychological and philosophical dimensions of unexplained phenomena. The publication also highlights the ongoing nature of UFO investigations and the commitment to informing the public.