United Public Domain Gold 2/United Public Domain Gold 2.iso/utilities/pu638.dms/pu638.adf/PARA449

Text File | 1994-10-19 | 40KB | 682 lines

                Info-ParaNet Newsletters   Volume I  Number 449

                           Saturday, August 10th 1991

Today's Topics:

                             Belgium Update, Part 2
                             Belgium Update, Part 3
                             Belgium Update, Part 4

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (sm)
Subject: Belgium Update, Part 2
Date: 9 Aug 91 06:35:00 GMT

<Continued from previous message>

     After  the release of the Air Force report in the summer  of
1990, there were irrational reactions on the part of some  French
media.   Lt.  Col.  De  Brouwer  responded  by   supplying   more
information,  hoping to demonstrate that the situation  was  more
complex  and  better documented than many supposed, and  that  it
merited  further analysis. He resolutely followed an  open-minded
policy.  Some  journalists had labeled the  military  "The  Great
Mute"; by contrast, Lt. Col. De Brouwer maintained that "we  have
nothing to hide in this matter." I can attest to his deep honesty
and courage.
     After  talking  with a reporter from Paris  Match  (July  5,
1990,  issue), De Brouwer also allowed some members of SOBEPS  to
see an extract from the video film of the on-board radar from one
of  the  F-16s. The series of photos we were authorized  to  take
enabled me to make a preliminary assessment, and I realized  then
the   extremely  strange  nature  of  these  data.  Having   made
considerable  headway in interpreting some of the  initial  radar
data,  1 could see that the same explanation would not  work  for
these astonishing observations.
     In  order to go further, I needed the express permission  of
the  Minister of National Defense. Since my written  request  had
met with no response, probably because of bureaucratic inertia, I
decided  to telephone the Minister, Guy Coeme. His  response  was
almost  immediate: "I believe in openness." This was, I think,  a
historic attitude. In any event, it was an exemplary action, from
which other countries will soon, I hope, draw inspiration.
    After  this everything went like clockwork, albeit one  whose
hands  moved slowly. For instance, I received the data  from  the
Glons radar for the main events of March 30-31, 1990, on November
2, fully seven months later. The appropriate permissions had  all
been  granted,  but other military missions (in  particular,  the
Gulf  crisis  and  the intervention in  Rwanda)  took  precedence
compared  to  UFO  investigations. Still, there  can  be  a  real
advantage  to  letting  ideas  settle for  a  while.  At  present
thorough  studies are being undertaken in complete  collaboration
with an officer-engineer of the Belgian Air Force. I do not  wish
to  name  him  so  as to prevent him  from  being  besieged  with
inquiries.  The  conclusions of our study will be  published  but
only when this can be done in a responsible manner.

The fundamental results

     Almost  continually, radar screens show sporadic echoes  not
correlated  with  aircraft.  Radar operators  call  these  echoes
"angels"as  if  they  were  pure spirits.  For  them  the  echoes
constitute annoying "noise" and are ignored as much as  possible.
A priori they could just as easily be UFOs as natural  phenomena.
They  appear  only  occasionally, all over  the  screen.  An  air
traffic  controller cannot afford to waste time and attention  on
them. When I systematically recorded the positions in which these
"angels"  appeared,  however, I noted that they  often  moved  in
practically  straight  lines.  I have labeled  this  the  "flying
angels effect."
    The average speed of this movement is low relative to that of
aircraft (about 50 km//h). There are random fluctuations, but the
mean  speed is well-defined. The lines of motion are  of  limited
length, and their direction of motion is not correlated with  the
wind. Furthermore they can appear (perhaps even more often)  when
the sky is clear. The Semmerzake radar could locate the  physical
position of the radar returns. As the data accumulated, it became
evident that this phenomenon could not involve UFOs. It had to be
an  atmospheric problem, albeit a fairly special one,  since  the
radar  operators whom I consulted had not noticed this effect.  A
comprehensive  survey  of  the  literature  indicated  that  this
phenomenon  had  not  been  described  either.  I  have   finally
discovered an explanation based on known physical principles  and
on  some independent data. It will be described elsewhere when  I
have had time to verify it further. The "flying angels effect" is
undoubtedly of atmospheric origin.
    My  second main finding was that I found no  reliable  traces
associated with eyewitness accounts of UFO sightings, even when I
examined  the  traces over a wide range of times  and  places.  I
knew,  however,  that  there had been  previous  cases  of  radar
detection  of  UFOs.  The evidence in these  cases  seems  to  be
acceptable  (and  cannot  be explained  by  the  "flying  angels"
phenomenon). Given the lack of radar confirmation in Belgium,  it
would  be  easy  to put forward one or the  other  of  these  two
simplistic  hypotheses:  either the witnesses saw  nothing  of  a
material  nature,  or F-117 Stealth aircraft were  involved.  But
neither one nor the other hypothesis takes into account the whole
range  of  what was observed. The UFOs sighted  in  Belgium  were
usually  described  as  platforms, either  stationary  or  moving
horizontally.  This is sufficient to explain the low  probability
of detection by ground radars. The radar beams would be reflected
back as if by a horizontal mirror. The same technique is used for
the F-117A Stealth plane.
    On several occasions the UFOs had been described as having  a
vertical edge and a dome on top. Seen laterally or from above, as
from  an aircraft, radar detection might therefore be easier.  So
an F-16 might possibly detect a UFO of this kind, if the surfaces
were  not  made of radar-absorbent material.  This  presents  new
questions,  since  if UFOs are extraterrestrial,  why  are  their
shapes now different from previously reported objects? Could they
have adapted their craft's shape in order to evade our  detection
systems,  or  is it just a coincidence, resulting from  the  fact
that this batch of visitors come from somewhere else?
    As for the data from the F-16 on-board radar, which  operates
differently from ground radars and can record different kinds  of
data,  I  can  only  say,  for the  time  being,  that  they  are
astonishing. In particular, there are abrupt changes in speed  as
well as other strange features. This calls for a technical,  far-
reaching,  and careful study. We have made a start. I don't  know
what conclusion we will reach, nor when we shall reach it.

The views of Science & Vie

     With  a few rare exceptions, the French media's coverage  of
the  Belgian  UFO  sightings has not been  distinguished  by  its
objectivity.  Some writers did not hesitate to quite openly  make
fun of the "little Belgians" and their "tales " but we shall  see
who  laughs  last. What surprised me most was the fact  that  the
magazine  Science & Vie (Science & Life) had launched a  sort  of
anti-UFO  crusade. I have often admired this magazine's  articles
of scientific popularization. It has, in the past, taken a  clear
responsibility  for public's scientific education. It is all  the
more  deplorable,  then,  that  in  this  area  it  traffics   in
irrational,  unscientific polemics. The only advantage may be  to
document  the fact for future generations that at the end of  the
20th  Century  people reacted in this fashion, in  spite  of  the
lessons that they could have drawn from the history of science.
     When there is a conflict between a new kind of fact and  the
established  conceptual  framework,  people tend to  hang  on  to
preconceived  ideas. What does not fit in with the theories  that
are  regarded as unshakable is filtered out or repressed.  People
refuse to face reality. So far as UFOs are concerned, the  method
consists  of  selecting some facts that can be explained,  it  is
thought, in a conventional manner. Then it is believed that  this
result  can be extrapolated, without any effort's being  made  to
examine  the rest of the data. This leads to what can  be  termed
unwarranted generalizations.
     In its January 1990 issue (No. 868), Science & Vie showed no
hesitation  in discrediting all the Belgian eyewitnesses  on  the
basis  of  just  one photograph. This photo,  taken  near  Eupen,
showed a big luminous dot. The photographers submitted the  photo
to  SOBEPS, along with several others from the same  event.  Even
though  the  photo  had little to do  with  the  many  eyewitness
sightings,  it  could  have  been  given  an  detailed  analysis.
Instead,  the  editorial  team  of Science  &  Vie  preferred  an
unsupported   interpretation,   strongly  suggesting   that   all
eyewitness reports smacked of "poetry" or optical illusions.
    In the June issue (No. 813) the magazine provided information
about the F-I 17A Stealth aircraft. This sort of information  had
just  been  made public by the U.S. Air Force. The title  of  the
article-"The UFO: This Is It," showing an example of an F-  117A-
speaks  volumes  about  the  magazine's  commercial  rather  than
scientific   intentions.  Again,  it  insinuated  that  all   the
witnesses  must have been mistaken, like the Belgian  Air  Force.
The author of this article and everyone involved clearly felt  no
need  to  conduct on-the-spot inquiries in order to  obtain  more
information and acquire an objective view of the facts.
    The October issue (No. 877) of Science & Vie announced on its
first  page  that it was "on the track of the Belgian  UFOs."  In
fact, the author was concerned only with the events of March  30-
31,  1990,  and  the  involvement  of  the  Belgian  Air   Force.
Apparently he felt that this constituted the core of the  matter,
and that by debunking it he could dispose of the whole story.  He
considered  only  the  initial  reports,  which  contained   raw,
unanalyzed information. The author of the article is  intelligent
and  able,  but  his  method resembled  more  that  of  a  lawyer
defending a specific brief than that of a scientist  representing
the quest for truth. After the press conference given by Lt. Col.
De Brouwer, the F-I 17A hypothesis had been discredited, but that
need   be  no  obstacle;  plenty  of  other  hypotheses  can   be
constructed.
    Why  not suggest the existence of another secret plane,  with
all the capabilities necessary to explain the apparent paradoxes?
Perhaps  the  U.S. Air Force was testing this secret  plane  over
Belgium  without  notifying  the Belgian Air  Force  -a  friendly
nation  which uses American F- 16s. Does this seem  practical  or
likely? Consider that testing new planes inevitably involves  the
risk  of  an  accident  or  crash,  in  which  case  the  Belgian
authorities  would have to be notiFied to help protect  essential
secrets.
    Why not suggest that the Belgian police were so  unaccustomed
to seeing stars that they got all confused at the sight of  some?
Or,  above all, that there is no supporting evidence to  back  up
any of the Belgian sightings, even though there were more than  a
thousand reports and they went on for more than six months?
    Following this line of reasoning, everything is for the  best
in  the  "best  of  all  possible  worlds"  in  which  profounder
questions must not be asked.
   On  the contrary, it seems to me that it's always a good  idea
to  be guided by the Facts, especially when they are  unexpected.
What  thousands of witnesses have seen for many years  throughout
the world deserves serious study. I am not advocating a  specific
hypothesis, only asking people to open their eyes.

The witnesses' reactions

     Witnesses'  reactions are diverse, as might be expected.  In
most  cases people simply relate what has happened in  a  factual
manner, being explicit about what they have been able to  observe
and  confessing their perplexity. What now seems to me to be  new
and  significant is that many witnesses are annoyed at not  being
taken seriously.

<Continued in next message..>

--
ParaNet(sm) Information Service - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: ParaNet(sm)[e-mail]



--------------------------------------------------------------------


From: [e-mail] (sm)
Subject: Belgium Update, Part 3
Date: 9 Aug 91 06:36:00 GMT

<<Continued from previous message>>

    As regards the socio-psychological hypothesis, which explains
UFO sightings by the desire to make contact with extraterrestrial
beings,  I  do  not  believe that  this  is  compatible  with  my
experiences  interviewing a fairly sizable number  of  witnesses.
Naturally there are pathological and even psychiatric cases,  but
let  us  again refrain from unwarranted  extrapolations.  I  have
noted,  like  other investigators, that at the  outset  of  their
strange  sightings,  witnesses practically always try to  find  a
conventional  explanation; as they take in more details,  though,
the  conventional explanation no longer suffices.  This  reaction
violates a basic assumption of some "socio-psychologists."
    It is true that witnesses are quicker to think of a UFO after
the  media have told them other people have seen them,  and  they
report  sightings more readily once they know that  organizations
are   studying   UFO   reports  seriously.   Some   people   have
intentionally  scanned the skies, but they have  not  necessarily
seen anything.
    It  is  absolutely normal for someone to filter  and  analyze
sensory data on the basis of pre-existing conceptual models. What
happens  when  there is a discrepancy?  Some  witnesses  describe
extraordinary events, repeating that they do not believe in UFOs.
Perhaps  they're trying to reassure themselves,  perhaps  they're
afraid  of  seeming  insane  to  the  interviewers.  On   several
occasions  I  have met witnesses who, although accepting  the  ET
hypothesis,  are visibly upset about these "intruders."  Humanity
could be defenseless and dependent on the goodwill of an unknown,
technologically  very superior, external power. I have  met  only
one  witness  who told me in a confiding manner: "I  should  very
much like to meet them." He said this spontaneously when I  asked
him what he thought of his sighting.
    Reality  is  far less clear-cut than the  supporters  of  the
socio-psychological    hypothesis   imagine.    The    collective
unconscious  does  not, for the most part,  desire  contact  with
extraterrestrials. We cannot assume we are dealing with religious
beliefs,  either.  On  the contrary, it is clear  that  a  fairly
sizable  number of witnesses have no wish at all  to  communicate
what  they  have  observed. We know this  because  of  the  cases
discovered entirely by chance and long after the fact. The  1989-
90   Belgian  wave  encouraged  a  number  of  people   to   tell
investigators  about much earlier sightings. One man wrote to  me
describing  a sighting made during the mobilization before  World
War  II, when he was all alone on a road. He was so  excited  and
frightened by the experience that he told no one except his wife.
A  member  of  an embassy told me of a sighting  made  aboard  an
aircraft  with many other people. Afterwards, he asked me not  to
say  anything  about it to the other embassy  personnel,  saying,
"They'll think me crazy."
    The  fact  that  the UFOs reported here are  generally  of  a
different type from the traditional "saucer" is also significant.
If the witnesses had invented their accounts, they would probably
have tried to make them seem more believable by corresponding  to
the standard model. This is not what happened. One new feature is
that  the Belgian UFOs travel over cities at very low  altitudes.
Moreover,  there were no marked electromagnetic disturbances,  as
has often been reported in the past. These differences are  worth
considering  with a view to understanding the  technology  rather
than  simply assuming that the witnesses can't relate  accurately
what they've seen.

An enormous lozenge at Eupen

     Mr. J observed the same type of object twice. I heard of his
sightings  indirectly,  and  when I  telephoned  him,  he  firmly
insisted  on anonymity: "I don't want anyone to tell my  children
that  their  father  was out of his mind." He told  me  that  the
machine  he had seen was "incredibly large." This assessment  was
based  on  his first sighting, which was on December 1,  1989.  I
visited  him on January 15, five days after his second  sighting.
He  is  an amateur photographer and described the  UFO  with  the
precision of a careful observer.
   On the evening of December 1, he was going to take his wife to
a private exhibition organized by his club. At around 5 p.m.  two
of his five children, aged 14 and 15, had already told him  about
"strange  planes in the sky." After school they had been  playing
on  the  street  with  a Moroccan boy who lived  in  one  of  the
neighboring  houses. It was already growing dark and one  of  the
children said, "They're UFOs," using the German word for UFO. Mr.
J had replied, "Of course not, they must be planes."
    At  6:50  Mr.  J was ready to leave. He was  sitting  in  the
living room in his usual chair near a window that looks out on  a
terrace  at  the rear. At that moment one of  his  children  came
rushing  up  all  excited, saying, "Look,  they're  here  again!"
Struck  by his child's insistence, Mr. J rose and went  out  onto
the  terrace.  This forms, together with the garden, a  large  L-
shaped open space behind a cluster of houses. Mr. J saw the young
Moroccan,  who was at the back garden of his house, in the  other
branch  of L, pointing at the sky and stating, "See,  one's  just
coming."  Mr. J told me, "I don't understand how this  boy  could
say that so calmly, as if it was a commonplace remark, because  I
almost  fell over backwards when I looked up. I tell you that  if
you have not seen one, you cannot believe it. It was enormous."
    Mr. J then spontaneously set about drawing the object,  which
was lozenge-shaped, with two white lights at each corner and,  in
the  center,  a  kind of illuminated  bell  projecting  from  the
platform  (figure  1).  The surface of the object  was  dark  but
clearly  visible  against the brighter sky. It had been  a  sunny
day,  and the sky was perfectly clear. Stars were visible  around
the object. It glided slowly from southwest to northeast, without
the  slightest  sound.  It could be  followed  at  a  comfortable
walking pace. The large diagonal of the lozenge was perpendicular
to  the  direction of movement and was at least 35  meters  long.
During  my  visit  Mr. J went onto the terrace  to  show  me  his
reference  marks. The nearest end of the large diagonal had  been
directly  above  his house and the other end had passed  above  a
large  building 350 meters away. He was unable to  determine  the
altitude of the object, but he noticed that he could see the  sky
between the object and the building opposite. As a result he felt
that  the  object could have been even larger than  the  distance
between his house and the building.
     A  little  later on, Mr. J reported that  the  white  lights
flashed  off and on regularly. I asked him whether they did  this
at  the same time. He replied, "I don't know. I couldn't see  the
four  corners  simultaneously.  I had to crane  my  neck."  These
lights  were  circular and large. "The most  extraordinary  thing
about them was their power," he said. They illuminated the ground
with a white light. In the center of the lozenge was an "inverted
bell"  which  was wholly illuminated by an orange light.  At  the
bell's apex was a green light, darker than green traffic  lights.
The  skirt  of the bell was surrounded by a row  of  red  lights,
changing brightness sequentially. This gave a false impression of
revolving  lights. "These lights never completely went  out,  but
they grew distinctly brighter at certain moments."
    The  lights did not illuminate the underside of  the  object,
which  remained dark. The red lights "chased each other"  with  a
slow,  comfortable movement. "It wasn't an alarming  flash,  like
that  from  an ambulance or police car. It was even  pleasant  to
watch."  Mr.  J  also  remembered that  "the  luminous  bell  was
strange,  because you couldn't tell whether the light  came  from
its  interior or the surface." Since the witness was  an  amateur
photographer, he considered going to find his camera but realized
it was too big to capture adequately. Knowing that he had 100 ASA
film  loaded,  he gauged that the mass of the object,  which  was
almost  black,  would  not be made out on film  since  the  white
lights were too dazzling.
    He  did  what  he  could. "I tried to  remember  as  much  as
possible. I also called my wife and daughter so that someone from
my family could see it." Mrs. J did not see the object. She heard
her  husband but was in the bath. His daughter arrived after  the
object was already some way off, having passed over the roofs  of
the  houses. Mr. J went with her to the front, where they  stayed
long  enough  to  see the object leave, still at  a  fairly  slow
speed, passing over the Eupen cemetery.
     Mr.  J bitterly regrets not having taken photos. Since  then
he  has  been to Aix-la-Chapelle to buy infrared film,  which  he
keeps in the refrigerator. The young Moroccan came over while Mr.
J  was drawing his picture for me. He said, unasked,  "Yes,  it's
like  that." The vertical edge (on figure 1) was not  visible  on
December 1. Mr. J drew it based on his second sighting.
    This  second  sighting took place on Wednesday,  January  10,
1990, at about 1:35 p.m. It was dark. The witness, on his way  to
a  photo  club,  had  taken the E5  highway  after  reaching  the
Herbesthal road and was proceeding inland. He had gone only a few
kilometers  when  he saw a stationary object in the sky.  It  was
exactly  "the same model." Mr. J stopped his car on the  side  of
the  road.  Other drivers seemed not to notice  anything.  Mr.  J
leaned  on  the hood of his car, watching the  object  with  arms
crossed.  Everything was identical to the first sighting, but  on
this occasion the lozenge was oriented sideways, and he could see
it  had  a  constant and considerable height. It  was  about  500
meters  away.  Its lights seemed less bright this  time,  perhaps
because of the highway illumination.
    Mr.  J  was exasperated that he hadn't  brought  his  camera.
There  would probably be no point in returning home. After  10-15
minutes  the  object started to move off toward Fagnes.  It  left
slowly  and  silently. Just as it was  departing  the  luminosity
increased.  "It was as though the voltage of the lights had  been
intensified as it moved gently away."
    It may seem strange that Mr. J saw the same object twice.  It
should,  however, not be forgotten that the events of December  1
had  been  deeply  etched in his memory; as  a  consequence,  his
mental  "filters" would have been adjusted in such a way that  he
would more easily notice a similar object in the sky at night.  I
have no reason to doubt this eyewitness report. His sincerity and
spontaneity were evident. The witness had spoken with only a  few
people  and had learned to be cautious. "I have seen many  things
in my life," he said, "but when I talk about this, people look at
me oddly."

A UFO flies over Aix-la-Chapelle

     On  December  5  or 12, 1989, Mr. and Mrs.  O  were  driving
northward  on the Triererstrasse in the town of  Aix-la-Chapelle.
It was about 9:50 p.m. when they suddenly saw a flying object cut
across the road right in front of them. It moved steadily to  the
right.  It  had  two headlights in  front,  emitting  beams  that
slanted downwards. The light was white and intense without  being
blinding.  In  addition,  there  was  an  orange  light  on   the
underside, Dashing at the same rate as an ambulance's lights. Mr.
O  was  driving and had to pay attention to traffic, but  Mrs.  O
continued  to  observe what they still thought  was  an  aircraft
flying  exceptionally low. She kept it constantly in sight.  When
it had crossed the road, it extinguished its headlights, but  the
flashing orange light remained illuminated. This made it possible
to  see  that the object was describing a half-turn  on  a  tight
curve, heading back in the opposite direction.
    Mrs. O first saw it through the front right-hand window. Then
she turned around to look at it through the back rear window. The
object  approached again, passed over the car, and reappeared  in
the   front  left-hand  window.  It  had  cut  across  the   road
diagonally.  At a certain distance from the car,  its  headlights
came  on  again. Since the headlights were at the  front  of  the
object, they could no longer be seen directly, but the beams that
they emitted were visible. Unlike an aircraft, there were no rear
lights  or flashing red and green side-lights. All that could  be
seen  was  the flashing orange light, which  became  fainter  and
fainter as the craft went away.

<Continued in next message..>

--
ParaNet(sm) Information Service - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: ParaNet(sm)[e-mail]



--------------------------------------------------------------------


From: [e-mail] (sm)
Subject: Belgium Update, Part 4
Date: 9 Aug 91 06:37:00 GMT

<<<Continued from previous message>>>

    Mr. and Mrs. O returned to their home, near  Aix-la-Chapelle.
That  same evening, at 11:15 p.m., Mr. O stepped outside  to  let
the  dog out and noticed exactly the same object. It  was  flying
above  their  street,  in  the  direction  of  Stollberg.  Mr.  O
immediately called his wife. The headlight beams were less angled
than they had been before, but the machine was flying lower.  Its
motion  was  linear  and uniform, with a speed about  that  of  a
helicopter,  but  to the great astonishment of the  witnesses  it
made  no sound. Mrs. O was insistent about the absence of  noise,
for  conditions were such that she and her husband ought to  have
heard it had the craft been equipped with a motor.
    I  asked  them later about the apparent size of  the  object,
suggesting that a thumb held at arm's length might cover it.  The
immediate  response  was,  "No, it would have  required  a  whole
hand."  The sighting occurred fairly late, so the sky  was  dark.
The object stood out clearly against it, because it was  somewhat
brighter.  The witnesses saw an elongated shape, less  high  than
long,  with curved edges. The outlines were different from  those
of an aircraft or helicopter. The hypothesis of night gliders  or
ultralights is not very credible, particularly in the case of the
first sighting. The next day a police car passed down the street,
its   loud-speaker  requesting  those  who  had  seen   "anything
abnormal"  to  report it to them. Mr. and Mrs. O did not  do  so.
Were there other witnesses? They do not know, because they  don't
read  the  local paper. Mr. O, who is Japanese, subscribes  to  a
Cologne daily paper and the Financial Times.
    I  was alerted to this case by Mrs. O's sister, who lives  in
Eupen. The German police habitually ridicule UFO witnesses, so it
is not surprising that Mr. and Mrs. O didn't want to report their
sighting.  I  also conducted an inquiry into  a  close  encounter
involving  two German families living in Lontzen, in  Belgium  on
November 29. The children involved were frightened, so one of the
mothers  called  various places,  including  the  Aix-la-Chapelle
police.  She  told  me that they laughed at her  and  that  their
derisive response had shocked her.

A triangular UFO at Coblenz

     The  following  case was described in the  July-August  1990
issue of the Journal fur UFO-Forschung (Journal for UFO Research)
of  the  GEP  group (Society for the  Investigation  of  the  UFO
phenomenon), based in Ludencheid, Germany. The investigation  was
carried  out  by W. Kelch. This case is  interesting  in  itself,
since it involves the sighting of a triangle in another  country,
but it also has interesting psychological aspects. The  principal
witness, a 33-year-old woman, works at a military base and  seems
to have a solid character.
   The  sighting took place on the evening of February 21,  1990,
at 9:07 p.m., in Karthause, near Coblenz. The lady was  returning
home  by  car, accompanied by her mother (aged 69)  and  her  son
(aged  14),  who  had been to a judo lesson.  They  were  driving
through an attractive residential district on a fairly wide road.
To  the  right  was a continuous line of trees  15-18  meters  in
height, bordering a cemetery. The left-hand side of the road  was
fringed  with houses 20-25 meters high on a small  hill.  Through
traffic is virtually nil and, at this late stage of the  evening,
there was no residential traffic. In fact, no car went by  during
the  episode. The weather was cool and it was dark. The  sky  was
clear.
     The mother was the first to see two lights beaming  straight
down at them at a 45-degree angle (figure 2a). The object bearing
these lights slowed down, but the driver, fearing it might crash,
pulled to the right side of the road. There she stopped, with the
car  at  an  angle. The object stopped  above  the  road,  almost
directly  overhead. The driver switched off the  engine,  lowered
the  window  and looked out. She saw a large  triangular  object,
absolutely  stationary  and noiseless, at  rooftop  height.  From
other  reference  points it was possible to  determine  that  the
sides  of the triangle measured about 20 meters (figure 2b).  The
witnesses watched the object closely, but no one dared get out of
the car.
    Three  milky, yellowish-white lights were at the  corners  of
the triangle. They were bright but not blinding. In the center of
the triangle was a much larger light. Its color was changing  but
the  prevailing hue was grey-blue. These changes seemed to  imply
something revolving, reminding the witnesses of the mirror-globes
in discos. The witnesses said that "this light shone in a strange
way."  They saw only the lower side of the  triangular  platform.
The  object  had  a metallic appearance.  It  was  dark-gray  and
colorless,  with solid and sharp outlines The base  was  slightly
illuminated  by the lights on the object, allowing the  witnesses
to  observe  structures which they described  as  riveted  plates
(figure 2b).
    The  object  stayed overhead for two or  three  minutes  then
departed  suddenly in the direction of the houses. The driver  of
the car felt a breeze through her rolled-down window. The  object
accelerated  and  disappeared from view in less  than  a  second,
behind the roofs of the houses. It had arrived from the west, but
departed  towards the southwest. Its departure was speedier  than
that of a jet aircraft.
    The  witnesses  then  went home, and  the  woman  immediately
informed  her  husband, who was on nightshift. At  first  he  was
unwilling  to believe her story but finally, at  her  insistence,
called the local police. Although the police had not received any
other calls, they agreed to send a police squad to the area.  Her
husband also called the air-traffic sections at the Frankfurt and
Cologne-Wahn  airports. They responded that radar  detection  was
not  possible  at so low an altitude. The  three  witnesses  were
unable to sleep that night. The mother, feeling afraid, stayed in
her daughter's apartment.
    Later  on the wife tried to clear up the mystery on  her  own
initiative.  She found the address and telephone numbers  of  the
GEP,  who  sent  her  a questionnaire  which  she  completed  and
returned by mail. She succeeded in locating two other  witnesses.
Between  8:30 and 8:50 that same evening, a lady  saw  "something
bright   heading  quite  rapidly  towards  my  car,"   near   the
intersection of the A61 and A48 highways. Frightened, she braked.
Through  the  sunroof she saw a bus-shaped metallic  object  with
fairly  bright,  bluish lights. The object went  by  noiselessly,
disappearing  finally in the dark. A UFO was also seen by  a  30-
year-old  man,  just before 9:07 p.m., near the same  spot.  When
questioned,  however,  he distanced himself  from  the  incident,
saying, "Nobody's going to believe me anyway."
    When the GEP investigator contacted the police, they asserted
that  they could not recall having received any  telephone  calls
about UFOs and that they knew nothing of the matter. The lady and
her husband were annoyed by this denial. The investigator had the
impression that the wife was a down-to-earth sort of  individual.
He found no discrepancy between her account and the questionnaire
she  had completed. So far as the witness was concerned, she  had
seen an unidentified flying object.
    The  GEP tried to find a conventional explanation. A  balloon
was  ruled out because there had been a light east wind  and  the
object was first seen moving west to east. And how could it  have
turned around and left so fast? The police use BO-105 helicopters
to  patrol the highways for trucks, but this too was  ruled  out.
Could  it have been a military plane? There is in actual  fact  a
military  exercise  ground (Schmitenhohe)  two  kilometers  away,
where   German   and   NATO   forces   run   nocturnal   infrared
reconnaissance flights and other exercises. But that night  there
had been no exercises.
    In  Germany a CH-47 Chinook helicopter is often suggested  as
an  explanation for UFO reports. Such aircraft are  used  between
Mendig  and Mainz, but the flights take place almost  exclusively
during the day at a height of 800-1000 meters. Taken as a  whole,
the  evidence  in this case renders  that  explanation  unlikely.
Nevertheless,  the investigator thought it necessary to  consider
the  possibility that the three witnesses were in shock  and  had
perhaps  not heard the noise, having been paralyzed by fear.  The
investigator  thus concluded noncommittally that  "the  available
data  do not allow us to make an unambiguous identification as  a
known  flying  object."  You can make what you  like  about  this
statement.  Who  is  frightened?  The  witnesses  by  a  somewhat
hypothetical  helicopter,  or  the  investigator  by  social  and
psychological pressures?

A recent sighting in Switzerland

     This  event occurred on Sunday, October 14, 1990. The  Swiss
sighting was relayed to me by the witness, Mrs. Wengere, who  has
authorized   me  to  cite  her  name.  She  telephoned  me   from
Switzerland  and confirmed her account in writing. An  editor  by
profession,  she was clearly looking for people who would  listen
seriously  to  such  reports. She wrote to  a  Zurich  paper  and
personally collected various recent eyewitness reports a copy  of
which she sent me.
    On  the  evening of October 14 she and her  husband  were  on
their  way to a hospital to visit a friend. It was about 7  p.m.,
already  dark, with stars easily visible. The sky was  clear  and
there  was no wind. They were driving from Lostdorf, near  Olten,
toward  Zurich.  Mrs. Wengere spotted two  bright  white  lights.
They were motionless, a little to the left ahead of them, over  a
range of mountains. The couple could not see light beams but only
two large, luminous, perfectly round disks, surrounded by a light
atmospheric halo. The left-hand light was higher than the right.
    Mrs.  Wengere  at  first  thought  the  lights  must  be   on
transmission towers on the mountaintops, although they would have
to  have  been  erected recently since she had  never  seen  them
before.  There  was  still enough light in the  sky  for  her  to
observe  that there was nothing between the lights and the  range
of  mountains.  She  thus  deduced that  the  lights  had  to  be
supported  by  one  or two flying objects  whose  shape  was  not
discernible. She told her husband, "There's a UFO over there! "
    She  asked  him  to stop. He saw the  lights  and  could  not
explain  them  either, but he didn't stop because  there  was  no
parking space along the road and it would have been dangerous  to
stop  in the dark. The bright lights must have been of  excessive
dimensions  since  the  stars  appeared  minuscule  and  pale  in
comparison,  as did the lights of an approaching aircraft.  There
was  one approaching the UFO (figure 3a) at that very moment.  If
the  lights were at the same distance as the plane, each of  them
ought  to  have been almost as large as the  plane  itself.  Mrs.
Wengere  expected the object to react to the plane, but  at  that
moment she and her husband were passing a village and lost  sight
of the object. They even had to wait for a red traffic light.
    When  they  once  more  had a  clear  view,  the  lights  had
disappeared.  Mrs. Wengere was annoyed that her husband  had  not
stopped  when  she had asked him to. He exclaimed,  "Look,  there
they are again! " The lights were hanging a little higher in  the
sky,  above  the  mountains to the right of  the  road.  The  new
position  and the previous location formed an angle of about  100
degrees.  Since  the witnesses had not observed the  shift,  this
could have been another object entirely. In fact, they now  noted
a  third light, identical to the first two, a little to the  left
of the others. It was separated from them by a distance almost 10
times  as  large as the distance between the  other  two  lights,
which were still stationary.

<Concluded in next message..>

--
ParaNet(sm) Information Service - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: ParaNet(sm)[e-mail]



********To have your comments in the next issue, send electronic mail to********
                      'infopara' at the following address:

UUCP  {ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara
DOMAIN  [e-mail]

 For administrative requests (subscriptions, back issues) send to:

UUCP            {ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara-request
DOMAIN          [e-mail]
 To obtain back issues by anonymous ftp, connect to:

DOMAIN          ftp.uiowa.edu (directory /archives/paranet)

******************The**End**of**Info-ParaNet**Newsletter************************