Results

ArticleS7667

UFO Afrinews No8 (September 1993) — follow-up testimony and competing explanations

Cynthia Hind. files.afu.se. September 1993.

Hind follows earlier witness accounts while retaining missing material and competing assessments. A promised paper could not be found, a farm inspection found no crop changes, and she rejects a UFO connection for the Namibian flame report. Anonymous security-officer and unnamed VIP claims reach readers through Hopkins and magazine reporting; their official identities and recordings remain unverified. The conclusion criticizes leading questions and discusses ordinary sky phenomena.

Complete supplied issue text; ten native layouts
ArticleS7668

UFO Afrinews No9 (February 1994) — unanswered official follow-up and competing interpretations

Cynthia Hind. files.afu.se. February 1994.

Hind describes a brief call to an air-force pilot whose promised written account never arrived, alongside television reporting of CSIR responses. Witness accounts retain missing follow-ups, memory elicitation and ordinary alternatives. Budden proposes natural explanations for earlier reports; Hind accepts a possible click explanation while disputing his account of the following light. She distinguishes allegedly false Kalahari documents from a conclusion about the underlying event.

Complete supplied issue text; fifteen native layouts
ArticleS7671

UFO Afrinews No5 (January 1992) — revised testimony and disputed Kalahari contacts

Cynthia Hind. files.afu.se. January 1992.

Hind revisits witness accounts and the disputed Kalahari story, preserving missing replies, revised ages and descriptions, alleged threats and competing interpretations. The security claims pass through unnamed callers and intermediaries. A reported confession rejects Van Greunen’s claimed rank and participation while describing unnamed sources; it does not authenticate the underlying event. Negative observations and unachieved follow-ups remain visible.

Complete supplied issue text; thirteen native layouts

A curated public selection. Source review describes what was read; it does not establish that a claim is true. Our research approach