UFO Mail - No 164 - 2013

Magazine Overview

Title: Skandinavisk UFO Information
Issue: 164
Date: August 19, 2013
Publisher: Skandinavisk UFO Information

This issue of Skandinavisk UFO Information (SUFOI) delves into a variety of UFO-related topics, including classic abduction cases, photographic hoaxes, and modern explanations for sightings.

Bortført af aliens? (Abducted by aliens?)

The issue opens by referencing the 1975 TV movie "The UFO Incident," which was based on the real-life experience of Betty and Barney Hill. In September 1961, the couple reported being abducted by aliens during a nighttime drive in the northeastern USA. Through subsequent hypnosis sessions, they recounted being examined aboard a large spacecraft. The article notes that a 1992 American study estimated that nearly four million Americans had experienced alien abductions. It poses questions about the scientific perspective on such events and what leads individuals to believe they have been abducted, specifically referencing the Betty and Barney Hill case as the best-documented and most convincing abduction experience.

The magazine highlights a new publication titled "Aliens" by Kim Møller Hansen, chairman of SUFOI. This 44-page illustrated book, part of the "Fakta & Myter" (Facts & Myths) series, aims to provide answers and serve as a guide to the complex world of UFO phenomena, conspiracy theories, and half-truths. Previous titles in the series include "Area 51" and "Roswell." The book "Aliens" costs 89 DKK and can be ordered from the SUFOI shop, with any proceeds going to support ufo.dk.

Fupbillede fylder 30 år (Hoax photo turns 30)

This article, written by Kim Møller Hansen, revisits the 30th anniversary of a famous hoax photograph taken by Norwegian Pål Kristian Vaag. On August 19, 1983, Vaag, then a 20-year-old conscript, took a photo of what appeared to be a classic flying saucer against a backdrop of blue sky, mountains, and forest. The photo gained significant attention, appearing on the front page of the newspaper Verdens Gang (VG) and attracting the interest of the Norwegian defense forces.

The photo was published a year after it was taken, on August 7, 1984. SUFOI was contacted the following day. At the time, the private, skeptical organization NIVFO (Norwegian Institute for Scientific Research and Information) was active in Norway. Vaag's photo was analyzed by VG with NIVFO's assistance. SUFOI, having previously had suspected UFO photos analyzed by Ground Saucer Watch (GSW) in Arizona, USA, was asked to assist with Vaag's photo. This led SUFOI to play a central role in one of Norway's most discussed UFO photo cases. The investigation involved a large ring binder filled with correspondence, newspaper clippings, and analysis reports.

Vaag, born in 1963, was photographed in 2004 with front-page stories about his 1983 hoax. The article includes images of the VG front page from August 7, 1984, which launched the case, and from February 20, 1985, where Vaag admitted his photo was of a model suspended on a fishing line. The article states that Vaag earned considerable money from the story.

The hoax was exposed after SUFOI paid GSW to analyze the image, which revealed the faint outline of a thread or string attached to the object. This was GSW's last computer analysis before the organization ceased its operations. The article notes that today, most computers have the capacity to perform similar analyses that were considered advanced 30-40 years ago.

SUFOI financed GSW's analysis, which concluded that Vaag's photo likely showed a model suspended on a string, a suspicion SUFOI and others had already held. The report was sent to NIVFO and VG. When confronted with GSW's findings, Vaag confessed. He had constructed the object from a wooden bookend and a piece of cut-off pipe, hanging it from a fishing rod on his house roof and photographing it with a KODAK Disc 4000 camera. The article mentions that rumors and speculation arose during the Vaag case, with some claiming the object was surrounded by a force field or that NASA had analyzed the photo. However, the photo was correctly categorized as a hoax in the UFO FOTOCAT image database. The Vaag case was thoroughly covered in UFO-Nyt issue 2, 1985.

UFO? = UAV

This section, written by Dr. David Clarke, explores how Chinese rice paper lanterns and, more significantly, remotely piloted vehicles (UAVs) might be responsible for many UFO observations. The article highlights the increasing use of UCAVs (unmanned combat air vehicles) by the USAF and RAF in operations in Afghanistan and Yemen.

It references the release of UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) UFO files, where a defense source claimed that some database entries were due to secret tests of an oval, remotely piloted drone. The article mentions that in June 2013, the Royal Navy was set to receive its first ScanEagle drone, a three-meter wingspan aircraft launched by catapult, designed for reconnaissance.

The MoD has invested £30 million in the ScanEagle project, which is part of the UK's arsenal of UAVs. The article also mentions the Raven and Corax UCAVs developed by BAE Systems, tested in Woomera, Australia, and first photographed in 2006. These aircraft have narrow bodies and large wings for fast, offensive actions. Drones are also used by police and private companies for surveillance and civilian purposes, suggesting that such aircraft are likely developed and tested secretly near populated areas.

The article then discusses a news item about the closure of the UK Ministry of Defence's UFO archive. A retired military researcher wrote to The Times, admitting his role in "certain [UFO] observations" in the MoD database. He explained that in the 1980s, a British aircraft factory developed small UAVs with various equipment for different purposes. One system was designed to detect and destroy landmines and IEDs. These UAVs successfully completed many civilian and military tasks. When flying at night, the round UAVs were equipped with navigation lights (two green, two red) that gave them a 'ghostly' appearance due to their oval shape, leading to numerous 'observations,' despite the local police being informed of the flights.

The article concludes that drones like these could be responsible for many so-called 'UFO' observations, including a recent photo published in a Bromley, Kent newspaper. A woman reported seeing a strange 'flying' object near her home on April 27th, describing it as large, round, and not sounding like a helicopter. She expressed uncertainty about whether other types of aircraft existed beyond those she knew, but stated it didn't resemble anything she had seen before.

Links are provided to articles about drones in Denmark, regulations for flying drones, job opportunities related to drones, and general information about drones and their use.

Fra SUFOI's Fotoafdeling (From SUFOI's Photo Department)

This section, by Ole Henningsen, details two photo submissions received by SUFOI's Photo Department from Ekstra Bladet newspaper. The newspaper had received photos from young people in South Zealand, claiming to have seen a full moon and a half-moon simultaneously.

One photo, clearly showing a reflection phenomenon in the camera lens, was taken while photographing the moon with an Apple iPhone 5. The second photo, however, presented more of a challenge. While initially suspected to be a reflection, there were inconsistencies between the two photos, including different file sizes and one lacking exif data. The article notes that this particular type of reflection was not previously documented in SUFOI's archives.

It was also observed that the light phenomenon in the photo did not appear to have been directly visible in the sky to the photographer or others. The size of the marking suggested that if it were a real celestial phenomenon, it would have been widely reported in the media. The article suggests that multiple photos taken under similar conditions would have been expected if it were a genuine sky phenomenon.

Photoconsultant Karsten Bomholt commented that if the photo had been taken with a traditional film camera, it would have suggested double exposure. He noted that the claim of seeing the 'half-moon' with the naked eye sounded highly unlikely. He also questioned whether a similar app existed for inserting the moon into images as there was for inserting UFOs.

This skepticism proved accurate. After the case was reported on eb.dk, the involved individuals admitted that the photo was created using a new app called "Alien Sky." This explanation was later added as an update to the eb.dk article. The article mentions that most comments on the eb.dk article were nonsensical, but some took the matter seriously and discussed the app.

SUFOI's Photo Department received a subsequent apology email from Marc Lieberkind, who had submitted the photos. He admitted that he had not personally witnessed the phenomenon his friend claimed to have observed and photographed, and thus was unaware it was a hoax. The department thanked him for his honesty and noted that while many hours were spent on the report, they had learned something new.

The app "Alien Sky" can be purchased via iTunes for 13 DKK. The article provides a link to the app's page.

Har du en set en UFO? (Have you seen a UFO?)

This section reports on a UFO sighting near Fredensborg, Denmark, on July 20, 2013. A reader named Claus and his wife observed a strange red/light red object flying silently at an altitude of 3-500 meters from the west, moving in a large arc over their terrace. Claus described the object as having an indeterminate shape, not round, square, or hexagonal, and its light was not uniform. He estimated its size to be between four and six meters in its largest dimension and approximately the same in height. The object moved erratically and disappeared in a northeasterly direction. Claus stated that it was a very strange experience, unlike anything they had ever seen, and not a plane, model aircraft, balloon, or anything else known.

An article in Frederiksborg Amts Avis about this sighting led to another inquiry from a reader in Dronningmølle who had also seen something unusual in the sky. Albert reported seeing a perfectly round object with a very large aura flying silently towards Helsingør around 11 PM on Saturday. He called his wife to take a picture, but the object disappeared before they could do so. Unlike Claus, Albert described the object's color as orange rather than pinkish-red. The article provides links to related news reports.

Foto fra Jægerspris (Photo from Jægerspris)

This section details a photo submission from Constable Kevin Bachmann, who took pictures of the morning scenery at Jægerspris camp on July 21, 2013. One of his photos contained a small, dark marking in the sky that he only noticed later when reviewing the images on his computer. The marking appeared as a distinct oval object with a more diffuse 'superstructure' when magnified.

SUFOI's Photo Department assessed the image and concluded, based on the camera's shutter speed (1/2344 sec.) and comparison with other photos in their archive, that the marking was likely an insect very close to the camera, with its wing visible over its body. The article notes that this observation had no connection to other reported sightings in terms of time, place, or appearance.

Andre fotos til sammenligning (Other photos for comparison)

This section presents two additional photos for comparison. The first, taken in Valensole, Provence, France, in July 2013, shows a lavender field with a small insect visible in a magnified inset. The second photo, taken by Hansjürgen Köhler of CENAP in Germany, also shows an insect. Both images are presented to illustrate the possibility of insects appearing as anomalous objects in photographs.

Sandsynligvis et insekt (Likely an insect)

Based on the assessment of SUFOI's photo consultants and comparison with other archived photos, the conclusion is that the object in the Jægerspris photo is very likely an insect close to the camera. The article reiterates that this observation has no connection to other sightings in terms of time, location, or appearance. It suggests that the other two observations (from Fredensborg and Dronningmølle) might be attributable to small hot air balloons, but not the same phenomenon as the Jægerspris photo. The article provides a link to a related news report.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue of Skandinavisk UFO Information revolve around the critical examination of UFO phenomena. The magazine actively investigates and debunks purported sightings and photographic evidence, as seen in the detailed analysis of the Pål Kristian Vaag hoax and the "Alien Sky" app case. There is a clear editorial stance favoring rational explanations, including the role of technology like drones (UAVs) and the misinterpretation of natural phenomena or photographic artifacts (reflections, insects). While acknowledging classic abduction cases like Betty and Barney Hill, the focus is on providing evidence-based analysis and debunking misinformation. The magazine also promotes its own publications and resources, such as the "Fakta & Myter" series and the ufo.dk website, positioning itself as a source of reliable information in the field of ufology.