HEILBRONNER UFO INFORMATION

Magazine Overview

Title: HEILBRONNER UFO INFORMATION
Issue: 3
Date: October 1983
Publisher: CENAP-HEILBRONN UFO-INFORMATION (UI)

This issue of the German UFO magazine "Heilbronner UFO Information" (UI) presents a mix of local sighting reports, in-depth investigations, and commentary on the UFOlogy scene. The cover prominently features the headline "BALLON-IFO VERWIRRT BEOBACHTER" (Balloon-UFO Confuses Observers), hinting at the contents.

Letters to the Editor

The issue begins with a letter to the readers, acknowledging previous issues and stating the intention to delve deeper into reporting. It announces that this issue will cover a common UFO sighting in Germany and hints at an informative interview. It also mentions that the planned report on the 3rd CENAP- Meeting has been postponed to the next issue to accommodate other congresses, with issue No. 4 being a dedicated congress issue.

Leingarten Sighting: A Weather Balloon?

The magazine details a sighting that occurred on the night of July 9th, 1983, near Leingarten, close to Heilbronn. Several witnesses at a garden party observed a "glowing, deep orange-red, spherical object" that initially appeared to be the moon but was lower in the sky. The object reportedly "flew towards us and then suddenly turned west." The silent object was observed for ten minutes, during which it moved steadily without noticeable changes in speed, color, or altitude. The report notes that the object passed by the Leingarten municipal administration unnoticed, likely because it was late at night.

An investigation by J. Ickinger and R. Gehardt, dated July 9th, 1983, classified the sighting as "Earthly/D 1," suggesting a mundane explanation. Subsequent telephone conversations and an on-site meeting with witness Frau S. led the investigators to suspect it was a small hot air balloon. This suspicion was reinforced by similar, previously investigated and identified sightings. The investigators concluded that the appearance of the phenomenon was consistent with their balloon hypothesis, finding no difficulties in identifying it.

The witnesses were initially surprised, as they were unfamiliar with such balloons, but eventually accepted the explanation. The report includes a CDSS code for the case: "018 STR 0907832330 LEIN D-- 89 10 0.35 13 05 0 11 AAC D1."

UFO as a Party Gag?

This section questions whether the alleged UFO sighting over the Heuchelberg was merely a party gag. The Heilbronn group "Zentrales Erforschungsnetz Außergewöhnlicher Phänomene" (CENAP) is mentioned. The report reiterates the sighting of a "glowing, deep orange-red object" by garden party guests on the night of July 9th-10th. CENAP ufologists, seeking further witnesses, suggest that the object could have been a playful variant of a hot air balloon, which are currently popular party attractions and can easily confuse observers, according to Jochen Ickinger.

A humorous exchange is presented: "Do you believe in flying saucers?" "Certainly!" "Have you ever seen one?" "Not since my divorce."

Interview with Klaus Webner: Debunking the Nagora Photos

A significant portion of the magazine is dedicated to an interview with Klaus Webner from Wiesbaden, who is presented as an expert who critically examines UFO photographs. The interview focuses on the controversial "Nagora- Fotos," which were marketed by the Ventla-Verlag as "convincing and genuine UFO color photo series."

Rudolph Nagora, then 25, claimed to have photographed a disc-shaped spaceship twelve times on May 23rd, 1971, near St. Lorenzen, Austria. These photos were widely distributed. However, Klaus Webner disputes this, stating that the photos do not depict a spaceship and are not genuine UFO evidence. He published a photographic documentation titled "The Nagora Photo Series Critically Examined."

Webner explains his interest in trick photography began in 1973, experimenting with simple methods to replicate alleged UFO photos. He recounts the astonishment of himself and others when their early attempts, using basic equipment and even just a thrown-up lid, produced images that appeared to show large flying machines over Wiesbaden.

He asserts that any layperson can create trick photos with primitive equipment, and dismisses claims by Ventla-Verlag that the Nagora photos cannot be manipulated as misleading. Webner points out that even Karl Veit, a prominent UFOlogist, had previously acknowledged the existence of fake UFO photos. He believes that perfect tricks are undetectable, even by computer ufologists.

Webner highlights specific flaws in the Nagora photos, noting that the alleged sighting location in St. Lorenzen could not be verified. Investigations with over 30 local residents yielded no one who had heard of a flying object there. He also points out that the cloud formations in Nagora's photos (specifically numbers 8 and 9) do not align with the time frame Nagora claimed for their creation, suggesting they were taken over a much longer period. He also criticizes the "analysis" methods used by some ufologists, which he deems completely unrealistic, citing an example where he photographed a VW hubcap thrown in the air, and occult photo-readers identified it as a manned spacecraft traveling at high speed.

Webner's own experiments, such as photographing a thrown VW hubcap and having it identified as a UFO, are presented as evidence of how easily ufologists can be fooled. He believes that ufologists are prone to falling for simple photo tricks because they want to believe in the "big saucer miracle" and lack the critical experience to analyze photographic evidence. He suggests that many ufologists avoid critical analysis to protect their cherished beliefs.

Webner's documentation is recommended as a way to understand these issues.

Short Reports

Why is Karl Veit Lying?

This section criticizes Karl Veit and the DUIST organization. It references an invitation to a DUIST congress where Prof. Sh. Seike and Major C. von Keviczky were to speak, with their travel costs to be covered. The author calls this a "lie and a fraud" because, according to the author, Veit knew that von Keviczky would be in Germany at the time of the congress and also had significant disagreements with him. Furthermore, the author states that M. Hesemann from Neuss, not DUIST, is now the IKUFON representative for Germany.

The author notes that Herr Keviczky was eventually invited, implying it was due to the German UFO scene being aware of his presence in Germany.

Michael Hesemann Excluded from DUIST!

According to Michael Hesemann, he has been expelled from DUIST. The reasons are speculated to be related to a letter he sent to "Oberufologe" Veit, asking Veit to resolve his disputes with Herr Colmann von Keviczky.

Book Tip!

Addresses for UFO Research!

A book titled "Taschenbuch der Luft- und Raumfahrt- Presse 1983" (Handbook of Air and Space Travel Press 1983), published by Deutsche Lufthansa AG and edited by Kroll-Verlag, is recommended. It is a 332-page paperback containing names, addresses, and contacts for air and space travel journalists, publications, and relevant organizations in Germany and internationally.

Film Tip!

Finally! Close Encounters of the Third Kind on Video!

Steven Spielberg's film "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" is highlighted as a highly anticipated video release for the autumn season, expected to be a hit in video stores. The film is 129 minutes long, in color, and rated for ages 12 and up.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently promotes a critical and investigative approach to UFO phenomena, particularly concerning photographic evidence. The interview with Klaus Webner strongly advocates for skepticism towards sensational claims and highlights the prevalence of hoaxes and misinterpretations in UFOlogy. The editorial stance appears to favor rational explanations, such as weather balloons, for reported sightings, and is critical of organizations and individuals perceived as misleading the public or engaging in fraudulent practices. There is an emphasis on debunking and providing evidence-based analysis, as seen in the detailed critique of the Nagora photos and the questioning of Karl Veit's motives.