This file contains an independent report on UFOs written by the French association COMETA (previously published in the French magazine VDS in 1999), whi…
Full Document Text
Text extracted directly from the source PDF. Text extraction via abigailhaddad/ufo-releases; original file at war.gov.
Read the full text (200,000 characters)
--- PAGE 1 ---
7</07'i
tl
--- PAGE 2 ---
• 498 Manzanita Ct.
Ventura, CA 93001
April 30, 2001
Hi Dan
Jon (Cypher) and I look forward to seeing you on Friday at 3:30pm in your office.
Jon, you probably recall, is an actor who starred on "Hillstreet Blues" and "Major Dan,"
among many other TV shows, Broadway (wish you could hear him sing ''The Impossible
Dream" which he sang on Broadway in La Mancha), and movies. He's aJso a scholar
(and sings opera in four languages), and speaks eloquently about space. We've been
married for fifteen years.
Since I closed down the Institute for Security and Cooperation in Outer Space a few years
ago, which I founded in '83, we've both been searching for our role in promoting the
space program.
As you know, I was spokesperson for von Braun during the last years of his life. He had
me commit to finding the path to open the doors to space .. . with his full and unlimited
vision. I think I've found a way to do it.
• We're bringing you a package that will give you the idea. (Don't worry, it won't cost
you or NASA a dime.) And we'll only take as much time as you want ... even just a few
short minutes as I know how busy you are. But it's going to be worth this trip to hand
this to you in person.
Also, we'd love to take you (and yours) to lunch or dinner during the week we'll be in
DC. Possible?
See you Friday.
My best, ~~
Carol Rosin
805-641-1999
Cell 805-340-5121
Rosin@west.net
PS. The photo was taken at the US Space Foundation where we were keynote speakers.
--- PAGE 3 ---
',/uE5 --
1
J>/tt/- 45 ;Pt2-o/vftS£1) /
J./f3Re_.
15 11-tc. riu:wCJ-1- Cb.H&-774 /('£pv.e."J['
)lov Wll.t... I V ~ '77-fc /£e8-!C6 oyl
y~/2.. ro.l!.M~ Ca.JAi~~ A-.tVO ~
L 1:;r Or ec,,,,unz-1 lWTCe..s o4 /J5-
::r . / 0 )> ~Po1<e- I r I .:s fl- llc-1v'~-
/1/0r ~//ei;!Jv,vJ~,-/r- f2e';Pt:>R..T 6'1-r
~ ~ LI ry A-vD ;'oJ3t;./ 2 N,4T[.);
~ 771£ Wr~MJTs ./7/LL, .:z::
--rJ-hJK., /l£c..1r-1?-4e/lJJ:>.S. i r TlJ _;>ltt1.
/f1c.Tjc L£:.S ~ //VC-t-LlDJ:fP Foe
YLJV.€.. ;J'~~~,::/L ~ o.,J f:4ZS DF
1ltr£: ?A Fey£; :b OC:..V.H&vT LA.)£ 679 t/2
y.ov t5 A $u;...,H~f2j oY' me l2cra -:
f At.LvJ:>t!.J>
Ji;N,.J (!A-JL/Htf+",J'.s T/?"77"<?-'/PJ;JA ~-,,.,.
l'r5> 7i:J f'f'O /cTIAM- J:>Dc.u/"'Ic,1.,721770, /
I _:5, o ,,J p e, '7- . j;:;v1 of"?.. -41.'2. r~,::;
CbP71u,U-E.;( A-;- M~.x ~ -,-"f ~~
ijOµftL ,41 /2.~t>,eT,.... £1',/~/~,J ~ /c.(>LJ}"f=Qc:.,
I ~ O,U t! 10.S- f"Le;A ~£= /le~ J;> rJt£
~~ f!N:.rta. S'Eaii>,,.J Flu>,,._, Pi,2
D , .I
For Reservations Call 1-800-HOTELS I
--- PAGE 4 ---
-;;::- f!TLu.f~J 77-f/,,Jtc. 0,C l#JMl..e:r5
1
' 77fC;2_t3-' ,4-t2£ ,f,/JD/Ze --rH'JMfr.> 'Ttl.Jl >(_,,......
r1ffel/&rJ /r/V.D ~ 77MJ,JMe-
.D(V~A-Mf:3...D t:9r / ,/Vyl)vl'l $/;~!>O f-'H'/,
tfz>~.,,, 0 ,. ,.
'fH'A'rlk/ ,%;1'7~ "Ft'fl- ~ AI.G- v:5
A-,,JD I r 7Jrtf!Z£ 1trz£ !vvrf-5-77i> ,J,r -
~ Ci'J..J,{2.Sf: eA-,_ L -r).1,£ /?£r,);:11 $.$A~
A--r q91 q '0 ll(u/ , 2-oz g'i9-f@~-
~
For Reservations Call 1-800-HOTELS 1
--- PAGE 5 ---
I
I
I
UFOs and Defense:
I ·What Should We Prepare For?
I
I
I -An independent report on UFOs written by the French association
COMETA. This report details the results of a study by the Institute of
I Higher Studies for National Defence.-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I This paper originally appeared in a special issue of the magazine VSD
published in France in July 1999.
I
I
--- PAGE 6 ---
I
I
I
I
I
UFOs and Defense
I
I --The COMETA Report--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--- PAGE 7 ---
r-
I "Stripping the UFO phenomenon ofits irralional layer"
I Foreword by Professor Andre Lebeau, Former chairman of the Centre National
d'Etudes Spatiales
(CNES) (French National Center for Space Studies]
I It is not looked on highly in certain scientific circles to be preoccupied with phenomena
that are deemed to come under the heading of popular mythology or that are, at any rate,
I outside the realm ofscience. Such was the case with stones falling from the sky, which
was long considered in our country to be the stuffoffable. However, the day that a
meteorite shower over the town of Laigle permitted a collective and indisputable
I observation, it entered into the domain of science. One century later NASA, no doubt
hastily, elevated these stones to proof of the existence of primitive life on Mars.
_Phenomena ofthis type pose a preliminary problem for the scientific approach: does a
I scientific fact exist? •
When the phenomenon is a matter of experimentation, the criterion to be used is simple~
the reproducibility of the experiment is the touchstone and furnishes the fact that must
I then be interpreted. But the situation is more difficult when the phenomenon is not open
to experimentation, when repeated observation is the only basis on which one can go, as is
the case in astronomy and for the most part in geophysics. However, when the fact, albeit
I rare, is collectively and indisputably visible, it is easy to elevate it to the status ofscientific
object. The existence of eclipses, comets, and novas has been recognized_since ancient
times,._even though their interpretation long contained - and sometimes still contains - a
I religious dimension. Thus collective and simultaneous observation plays the same role as
the reproducibility of experiments.
I This is not true when the event is not only rare but discrete as well, and when there is a
very small amount of evidence at each occurrence, which opens the door to various
suspicions. Unidentified flying objects, or UFOs, fall into this category. One runs up
against additional difficulties in the case of UFOs, firstly that of how many human
I activities, especially since the beginning of the space age, have generated atmospheric
phenomena the origin of which is not immediately ascertainable by those who observe
I them. In any case, UFOs, the origin of which cannot be attributed to either a human
source or a natural mechanism that has been identified by science, are mixed in with a
background noise the origin of which, although difficult to identify, is not at all
I mysterious.
Moreover, and above all, the existence of unexplained manifestations, both in the
atmosphere and occasionally on the surface of the earth, inevitably gives rise to a
I fundamental question: are we alone in the universe? Could some of these phenomena be
the work of extraterrestrial beings? This question gives the UFO issue a sociological,
media-related, and even religious dimension in a domain that is not that of science and
I scientific methods. And it is the very existence of this dimension that elicits reactions of
rejection in the scientific community.
However, a dispassionate examination of the situation should lead those who believe in
I the value of scientific method to consider that the very existence ofa strong irrational
environment is another reason to apply the precepts of this method to the issue of UFOs.
COMETA has tried its luck at this in the report that it is presenting, supported, namely,
I by the work performed by GEPAN, which later became SEPRA. The significant place
granted to sightings, to testimonies, and to the analysis ofcases that have been explained
shows the major role played here by the establishment of facts. But we also find in this
I
I
--- PAGE 8 ---
I
document a reflection on the hypothesis of extraterrestrial intelligence and of the
importance that it could have if studies came together to confirrn it.
This report is useful in that it contributes toward stripping the phenomenon of UFOs of I
its irrational layer. When aJI is said and done, the question of detennining whether or not
those who created this report believe in the exi~tence ofextraterrestrial visitors, concealed
in a variety of phenomena that are surprising in appearance but commonplace with respect
I
to their cause, is of no real importance. What a scienti?t believes is important in the
conducting of his research because this is what motivates and drives him. But his beliefis
not important to the results of his research nor does it have any effect on those results if he
I
is rigorous.
I·..
Table of Contents
PREFACE
FOREWORD
Page 5
Page 6
I
INTRODUCTION
PART l FACTS AND TESTIMONIES
Chapter 1 Testimonies of French Pilots
Page 7
Page 9
I
.· :·
Chapter 2 Aeronautical Cases Throughout the World Page 12
Chapter 3 Sightings from the Ground
Chapter 4 Close Encounters in France
Page 17
Page 20
Chapter 5 Counterexamples of Phenomena That Have Been Explained
Page 24
'I
PART 2
Chapter 6
THE EXTENT OF OUR KNOWLEDGE
Organization of the Research in France
Page 27
i
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Methods and Results ofGEP AN/SEPRA
UFOs: Hypotheses, Modeling Attempts
Organization of the Research Abroad
Page 31
Page 35
Page 42
I
PART3
Chapter 10
UFOs AND DEFENSE
Strategic Planning Page 55
I
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Aeronautical Implications
Scientific and Technical Implications
Political and Religious Implications
Page 59
Page 62
Page 64
I
Chapter 14 Media Implications
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 69
Page 71
I
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Radar Detection in France Page 74
I
Appendix 2 Astronomers' Sightings
Page 74
Appendix 3 Life in the Universe Page 75
I
Appendix 4 Colonization of Space
Appendix S The Roswell Affair - Disinforrnation
Page 75
Page 77
Appendix 6 The Long History of the UFO Phenomenon - Elements ofa
I
I
I
--- PAGE 9 ---
,
I Chronology Page 80
Appendix 7 Reflections on Various Psychological, Sociological,
I 82
and Political Aspects of the UFO Phenomenon Page
I REFERENCES
GLOSSARY
Page 87
Page 90
I The photo section from pages 43 to 50, as well as pages 2 and 91, were not part of
the initial report.
I Publication of:
[G.S. Presse Communication logo] 79-83, rue Baudin, 92309 Levallois-Perret Cedex.01
55 21 00 50, fax: 01 55 21 00 55. Societe anonyme with FF 250,000 in capital, in business
I for 99 years. Sole Chief Executive Officer: Daniel Denis. Publication Director: Daniel
Denis. Art Director: Richard Y otis. Editorial Assistant: Jacques Peron. Illustrations and
Technical Consulting: Bernard Thouanel. Editorial Dept. 0 1 55 21 00 50. E-mail:
I vsd_hs@worldnet.fr. Public Relations Agent: Image7/Isabelle de Segonzac 01 44 15 93
94. Sales and restocking: MEP, 01 42 56 12 26,
I UFOs AND DEFENSE
What should we prepare for?
COtviETA, an association governed by the Law ofJuly 1, 190 1.
I All reproduction, in whole or in part, translation, and adaptation rights reserved for all
countries. Copyright 1999.
terminal ELL. Photoengraving: Key Graphic. Printing: Berger Levrault, 34, avenue du
I Roule, 92220 Neuily-sur-Seine. Joint Appeals Board No.: 59521. ISSN 1278-916 X.
Copyright deposit: July 1999.
© G.S. Presse Communication. The editorial department is not responsible for the loss of
I or damage to texts or photos that are sent to it for consideration. Reproduction in whole
or in part ofany material published in the magazine is prohibited.
I Cover:
Photo taken on September 4, 1971, directly over the Tilaran range in Central America
by an airplane from the National Geographic Institute ofCosta Rica (Bernard Thouanel
I collection).
I
, ,
I
I
I
I
--- PAGE 10 ---
"Concrete problems are raised that call for a response
in terms ofaction"
by General Bernard Norlain,
Former director of the lnstitut des Hautes Etudes de Defense I
Nation ale
(IBEDN)]
(Institute for Advanced National Defense Studies
I
When General Letty visited me in March I 995 at my office at IHEDN to explain to me
his project for creating a new committee for study of UFOs, I assured him of my interest
and referred him to the management ofthe IHEDN Auditors Association (AA), which •
gave him its support. Knowing that some twenty years earlier the AA had produced and
published a preliminary report on the subject in its bulletin, it was but time to update it.
I
Denis Letty seemed to me to be the perfect one to spearhead this task~ one month
earlier, in February, he had organized, within the framework of the Ecole de l' Air [Air
I
Force Academy] Alumni Association, a conference on unidentified aerospace phenomena.
Before a large public, some of our comrades, former pilots, spontaneously related their
encounters with UFOs. The person in charge of studying these phenomena at the CNES
I
then presented his results, and a well-known astronomer described a scientifically
acceptable version of the extraterrestrial hypothesis. I
The fields of knowledge affected by the UFO phenomenon are very diverse, and
General Letty was able to find within the AA, but on the outside as well, numerous
experts whose efforts h~ coordinated. The list of high-level civilian and military degrees
I
of the members of his committee is very impressive: officers, engineers, and specialists in
physics, life sciences, and social sciences were able to deal with all aspects of the study. I
This is not a purely academic study. Concrete problems are raised, and not only for
civilian and military pilots, that call for a response in tenns of action. The makeup of
COMETA [Committee for In-Depth Studies], which is the name ofthe committee, took
I
these into account. Almost all of its members have, or had during the course of their
careers, important responsibilities in defense, industry, teaching, research or various
central administrations.
I
I express the wish that the recommendations of COMETA, which are inspired by good
sense, will be examined and implemented by the authorities of our country. The first
I
report of the AA favored the creation within CNES of the only civilian government agency
known in the world dedicated to the study of UFOs. May this new report, which is much
more in-depth, give new impetus to our national efforts and to indispensable international
cooperation. IHEDN will then have well served the nation and, perhaps, humanity.
"Consider all oftile hypotheses"
I
I
I
--- PAGE 11 ---
by Denis Letty,
Air Force General, 2nd Section, AA (35)
I The accumulation of well-documented sightings made by credible witnesses forces us
to consider from now on all of the hypotheses regarding the origin of unidentifiedflying
I objects, or UFOs, and the extraterrestrial hypothesis, in particular. UFOs are now a part
ofour media environment; the films, television broadcasts, books, advertisements, etc.,
dealing with UFOs amply demonstrate this.
I Although no characterized threat has been perceived to date in France, it seemed
necessary to the former auditors of the Institut des Hautes Etudes de Defense Nationale
(IHEDN) to take stock of the subject. Along with qualified experts from extremely varied
I backgrounds, they are grouped together to forrn a private in-depth fact-finding committee,
which was christened COMETA.
I This committee was transformed into a COMETA association, which I chair. I would
like to thank General Bernard Norlain, former director of IHEDN, and Mr. Andre Lebeau,
former chairman of the Centre National d' Etudes Spatiales, without whom COMETA
I would not have been born.
In addition, I wish to acknowledge the various people who agreed to give their
I testimony or to contribute to this study, and namely:
Jean-Jacques Velasco, Head of SEPRA at CNES,
Fran~ois Louange, Chief Executive Officer of Flex.image,
, Jean-Charles Duboc, Jean-Pierre Fartek, Rene Giraud, civilian and military
pilots,
I Edmond Campagnac, former technical director of Air France at Antananarivo,
Michel Perrier, Squadron Commander, Gendannerie Nationale
M. Soun, ofthe Direction Generale de !'Aviation Civile [Civil Aviation Agency]
I Joseph Domange, Air Force General, Auditors Association delegate general.
I must also thank the commander of the Afr Force Air Operations Command Center for
its participation during the investigation into flight AF 3532 on January 28, 1994.
I Among the members ofCOMETA who spared no effort for close to three years, it is
possible for me to list:
I Michel Algrin, State Doctor of Political Science, attorney-at-law, AA (35), (1)
Pierre Bescond, Weapons Engineer General, 2nd Section, AA (48),
Denis Blancher, Chief of Police, Police Nationale, Ministry of the Interior,
I Jean Dunglas, Doctor of Engineering (Ret.), in Water and Foredtry Management AR
(48)
Bruno Le Moine, Air Force General, 2nd Section, AA (41 ),
I Fran~oise Lepine, Fondation pour Jes Etudes de Defense [Foundation for Defense
Studies], AA (33),
I Christian Marchal, Chief Mining Engineer, Research Director at ONERA
(National Aerospace Study and Research Office),
Marc Merlo, Admiral, 2nd Section, AA (35),
I Section.
Alain Orszag, Doctor of Physical Sciences, Weapons Engineer General, 2nd
I
I
--- PAGE 12 ---
(/): AA or AR xx: auditor of national or regional promotion no. xx.
,~
INTRODUCTION I
In 1976, a committee of the Institut des Hautes Etudes de Defense Nationale (IHEDN)
chaired by General Blanchard1 of the Gendarmerie Nationale1 opened the unidentified
I
flying objects file. The objective: to make proposals for organizing research and the
collection of data on these phenomena. The-goal was achieved, because the
recommendations of this cornm.ittee were followed b, the creation of the Groupe d'Etude
1
I
des Phenomenes Aerospatiaux Non Identifies (GEPAN) [Unidentified Aerospace
Phenomena Study Group], the precursor to the current Service d'Expertise des
Phenomenes de Rentree Atmospherique (SEPRA) [Atmospheric Reentry Phenomena
I
Consulting Department], a division of the Centre National d ' Etudes Spatiales (CNES),
which is in charge of this file. Twenty years later, it seemed useful to us to take stock 1.
once again of the knowledge regarding these sightings, which are becoming of greater and
greater interest to a large public that is often convinced of the extraterrestrial origin of
UFOs. Just look at the number offilms or television broadcasts on this subject.
For the sake ofconvenience with respect to language, we will use the term UFO
I
(Unidentified Flying Object) generally1 instead of the more scientific term UAP
(Unidentified Aerospace Phenomenon).
Without a doubt, the phenomenon remains and the number of sightings, which are
I
completely unexplained despite the abundance and quality of data, is growing throughout
the world. On the ground, some sightings, like the Trans-en-Provence sighting in 1981, I
have been the subject of in-depth studies proving that something did in fact land on the
ground and parked there. Civilian and military pilots have provided gripping visual
testimonies, often corroborated by radar recordings, as was the case recently in France. In I
view of the lack of irrefutable proof regarding the origin of these phenomena, the need for
understanding persists.
We will devote the first part of this report to several particularly remarkable French and
foreign cases.
e
In the second part, after having recalled the current organization of the research on
these phenomena in France and abroad, we will evaluate the work being done by scientists
I
worldwide who are interested in UFOs and are proposing, as we will see, partial
explanations that are based on known laws of physics.
Some of these (propulsion systems, non lethal weapons, etc.) could become realities in
I
the short, medium and long term.
We will review the principal global explanations proposed, focusing on those that are in
keeping with the current scientific data, which range from secret weapons to
extraterrestrial manifestations.
The UFO phenomenon involves defense in the broad sense and calls for a certain
number of measures, which we will examine in the last part:
-
- [providing] civilian and military pilots with sufficient information to teach them an
adapted conduct when faced with these phenomena and, more generally, [providing] the
public and decision-makers with information,
- developing the actions of SEPRA and promoting supplemental scientific monitoring,
or even research, actions,
- considering the strategic, political, and religious consequences of a possible
confirmation of the extraterrestrial hypothesis, the bizarre connotation of which it is
--- PAGE 13 ---
advisable to eliminate here and now.
PART I
Facts and Testimonies
I Before going further, it seems worthwhile to us to present several facts and testimonies
that in themselves justify the interest of the in-depth study that we are going to develop
below:
I - three testimonies of French civilian and military pilots who encountered UFOs in flight,
- five major aeronautical cases in the world,
- three sightings frQm the ground,
I - four cases ofclose encounters in France.
These few examples are among the hundreds of remarkable, that is to say credible and
well-documented, cases observed around the world in recent decades. None of these
I cases has been explained, whereas the majority ohimes the investigations enable the origin
of the phenomena observed by the witnesses to be determined; we will give two significant
examples of this.
I Chapter 1 - Testimonies of French Pilots
I Three French pilots who encountered UFOs in flight came to testify before the
committee. Their testimonies are all the more interesting because they can be eva1uated
I better than other aerial phenomena since they pertain to the aeronautic world.
I 1.1 M. Giraud, Mirage IV pilot (March 7, 1977).
The sequence of events of this incident was reconstructed from radio exchanges
between the pilot and the controller, which are routinely recorded and kept for a specific
I period of time in accordance with the procedure in force at all control centers. The
incident occurred on March 7, 1977, at around 2100 hours local time during the Dijon
I flyover when the Mirage IV was returning, the automatic pilot engaged, to Luxeuil after a
night mission. [The aircraft was] at an altitude of9600 m and flying at a speed of"Mach
0.9." The flight conditions were very good. The pilot (P), Herve Giraud, and his
I navigator (N) observed a very bright glow at "3 o'clock" (time code) from their aircraft,
at the same altitude, coming on a collision course and approaching very rapidly. We will
designate it "assailant" (A1) in the rest of the account. P queried the Contrexeville
I military radar station that controlled them to ask whether they had a radar contact on the
aircraft coming towards them. In fact, P and N thought that it was an air defense
interceptor, as is currently being used, that was seeking to intercept their aircraft to then
I identify it with its identification beacon.
The radar controller (C), who did not have a corresponding radar contact on his scope,
gave a negative response and asked the pilots to check their oxygen. This request on the
I part of the controller is a standard emergency procedure; it shows that the controller is so
I
I
--- PAGE 14 ---
~
surprised by the crew's question that he suspects an oxygen problem capable of causing a
I
"hallucination."
"Assailant A I " maintained its course towards the Mirage IV. P initiated a bank to the I
right toward A 1, a bank which he was forced to keep tightening (3 to 4 g) in order to try
to maintain visual contact on A I and to keep it from positioning itself to the rear. Despite
this maneuver, A I moved behind the Mirage IV at an estimated distance of 1500 m. At
I
this point P reversed his bank to regain visual contact on A 1. He saw the glow move
away to " 11 o 'clock." He resumed course to Luxeuil. But 45 seconds after he resumed
course to Luxeuil, feeling like he was being "watched" according to his own words, P
I
told N, "you wait and see, it's going to come back." And in fact, an identical glow,
which we will call A2, appeared at "3 o'clock."
P then initiated a very tight bank (6.5 g) to disengage his aircraft from what he now
I-
considered to be a real threat. The glow followed the Mirage !Y's maneuver in order to
position itself to the rear at an estimated distance of 2000 m. P reversed, as before, and
once again saw the glow disappear under the same conditions. C still did not have a radar
I
.'
contact on "assailant A2." P and N continued their flight and returned nonnally to the
Luxeuil base.
Those are the facts. Two points should be emphasized:
I
:!.
- only a combat aircraft could have had performance comparable to that of A 1 and A2
(speed, maneuverability). In this case, C would have had a radar contact on this aircraft,
especially at that altitude, a contact that he would have seen all the better since there was
I
no other traffic in the vicinity of the Mirage lY .
• - given the apparent maneuvers of Al and A2, regardless of whether or not they were
the same craft, their speed could only be supersonic, which, in the case ofcombat aircraft,
I
would be manifested on the ground by a very loud sonic boom due to the phenomenon of
the focusing of the shock wave generated by the bank. Th.is would have been noticed in
the surrounding area, especially since it was nighttime. But no sound was heard in the
I
region.
I
1.2 Testimony of a Fighter Pilot (March 3, 1976)
Since this pilot (P) wanted to preserve his anonymity, the following lines are extracted
from the written deposition that he wished to send to us (he revealed his name
I
subsequently~he is Colonel Claude Bose). On March 3, 1976, P, then a student pilot at
the Combat Flight School at Tours, was making a solo night flight in a T-33 training I
aircraft. The mission consisted of navigating at an altitude of 6000 m following a Rennes
Nantes-Poitiers itinerary, then landing at Tours. Several aircraft were following the same
itinerary at 5-minute intervals. The night was dark but cloudless, and the towns could be I
detected very clearly at the flight altitude in question. Visibility was greater than 100 km.
While he was flying stabilized at an altitude of 6000 m, at a speed of 460 km/h, P first saw
straig ht ahead, very far off in the distance (at the detection limit oflights on the ground)
I
what he at first thought was the launching ofa green signaling flare.
In 1 to 2 seconds, this flare exceeded the altitude of his aircraft by 1500 m and seemed
to level off in space before descending in his direction. It approached at a dizzying speed
I
on a collision course with the aircraft and fi lled the entire front windshield of the cockpit.
Th.inking that impact was inevitable, P let go of the joystick and crossed his arms in front
of his face in a reflex protection gesture. The aircraft was completely enveloped in a very
I
bright and phosphorescent green light. P saw a sphere (S) that avoided his aircraft at the
I
I
--- PAGE 15 ---
r
I very last moment and passed over his right wing grazing it, all within a fraction ofa
second. P retained the following memory of this incident:
I - S was not very large ( l to 2 m in diameter),
- S was extended by a tail, which was comparable to that on a comet, that was also a
fluorescent green color,
I - the center of S consisted ofa very bright white light (magnesium-fire type),
- the sighting lasted a total of less than 5 seconds.
P, who was very shocked by this phenomenon, informed the radar controller (-)
!I ensuring the control of the mission on the ground; the controller had not detected anything
on his radar scope. Upon return, two other pilots who had followed the same itinerary as
P stated that they had seen the phenomenon, but from a distance.
I
1.3 Air France Flight AF 3532 (January 28, 1994)
I Jean-Charles Duboc (P), captain of Air France flight AF 3532, was assisted by Copilot
Valerie Chauffour (CP) in making the Nice-London connection on January 28, 1994. At
I 1314 hours, while they were cruising at an altitude of 11,900 m in the vicinity of
Coulommiers in Seine-et-Mame [Department] under excellent meteorological conditions,
the chief steward, who was present in the cockpit at the time, pointed out a phenomenon
I that appeared to him to be a weather balloon. His sighting was immediately confinned by
the copilot. P, who in tum saw it, first thought that it was an aircraft banking at a 45°
angle. Very quickly, however, all three agreed that what they were seeing did not
I resemble anything that they knew of The excellent visibility and the presence of
altocumulus clouds permitted P to estimate that the phenomenon was at an altitude of
l 0,500 m and at a distance of approximately 50 km. Taking into account its apparent
I diameter, they deduced that the craft was large. They were struck by the changes in the
shape ofthe craft, which first appeared in the form of a brown bell before transforrning
into a chestnut brown lens shape, then disappearing almost instantaneously on the left side
I of the aircraft, as if it had suddenly become invisible. P reported to the Reims Air
Navigation Control Center, which had no information on any mobile air presence in the
vicinity. However, following the existing procedure, Reims informed the Tavemy Air
I Defense Operations Center (CODA) ofthe sighting made by the crew and asked P to
follow the "Airmiss" procedure upon landing.
CODA did in fact record a radar track initiated by the Cinq-Mars-la-Pile control center
I at the same time that corresponded in location and time to the phenomenon observed.
This radar track, which was recorded for 50 seconds, did cross the trajectory offlight AF
3532 and did not correspond to any flight plan filed. It should be noted that the
I phenomenon disappeared from the view of the crew and the radar scopes at the same
instant. The investigations conducted by CODA enabled both the hypothesis of a weather
balloon to be ruled out and the precise crossing distance of the two trajectories to be
I determined, consequently bringing the approximate length of the craft to 250 min length.
It should be noted that the Northern Regional Air Navigation Center (CRNA), which
handles 3000 movements per day, has investigated only three cases over the last seven
I years, one of which was that of flight AF 3532.
Chapter 2 - Aeronautic Cases Throughout the World
I
I
I
--- PAGE 16 ---
.,
It is appropriate to specify that those cases that have been sighted from aircraft are
I
considered to be aeronautic cases. This chapter describes five significant cases that
I
.,
occurred in different parts of the world and which were the subject of an investigation by
the authorities of the countries in question. In four cases, the objects were detected both
visually and by radar. In the fifth case, they were observed by a number of independent
witnesses.
2.1 Lakenheath (United Kingdom) (August 13-14, 1956) I
The joint USAF - U.S. Air Force - and RAF [Royal Air Force] military bases of
Lakenheath and Bentwaters are located 30 km northeast of Cambridge with respect to the
first and near the coast to the east of this city with respect to the second. Unknown aerial
I "
objects followed by their radars during the night of August 13 to 14, 1956, were judged
··11nide111ified'' by the report published in 1969 by the Condon Commission tasked with
evaluating the research of the U.S. Air Force on UFOs (cf Chapter 9). In September
I ,:,
1971, the magazine Astronautics andAeronautics published a study of the case by Thayer,
the radar expert on the Condon Commission, which was based in part on a study
presented in 1969 by Professor MacDonald, an atmospheric physicist. For the record, we ~
point out that on several occasions, and namely in 1976, Philippe Klass, editor of the
journal Aviation Week and Space Technology, attempted to criticize this work and to
reduce the case to a series of ordinary events (meteorites, radar propagation anomalies,
I
etc.). The incidents began at the Bentwaters base, preceded, between 2 100 and 2200
hours, by unusual sightings of the approach control radar [center], which we will not go
into in further detail. They took place as follows:
I
- At 2255 hours, the radar detected an unidentified object moving east to west passing
over the base, always almost into the wind at an apparent speed of 2000 to 4000 miles per
hour (mph), or 3200 to 6400 km/h. No sonic boom was mentioned. The personnel of the
I
Bentwaters control tower said they saw a bright light flying over the ground from east to
west "at an incredible speed" at an altitude of approximately 1200 m. At the same time,
the pilot of a military transport plane flying over Bentwaters at an altitude of 1200 m
I
stated that a bright light passed under his plane tearing east to west "at an incredible
speed. " The two visual sightings confirmed the radar detection.
- The Bentwaters radar operator reported these concurring radar and visual sightings to
I.
the shift supervisor at the Lakenheath [air] traffic radar control center, an American
noncommissioned officer to whom we are indebted for a quite detailed report of these
sightings and those that follow. The report, which was sent to the Condon Commission in
I
1968 by the then retired NCO, is coherent and does not contradict the documents in the
USAF [Project] Blue Book file except in a few minor points; among these documents, the
regulation telex sent by Lakenheath to the Blue Book team on the day of the incident and
I
the report forwarded two weeks later to that same team by American Captain Holt, an
intelligence officer at Bentwaters.
- The shift supervisor at the Lakenheath base alerted his radar operators. One of them
I
detected a stationary object approximately 40 km southwest of the base, almost in the axis
of the trajectory of the supersonic object seen at 2255 hours. The shift supervisor called
the Lakenheath approach radar [center], which confirmed the sighting. The radar
I
technicians at the air traffic control center suddenly saw the object immediately go from
immobility to a speed of600 to 950 km/h. The shift supervisor notified the base
commander.
I
·I
I
--- PAGE 17 ---
I The object changed direction several times, describing line segments ranging from 13 to
I 30 km, separated by abrupt stops for 3 to 6 minutes; the speed always went from a value
of zero to a value of some 950 km/h without any transition.
Visual sightings were made from the ground and confirmed the high speed and
I astounding accelerations. The regulation telex sent by Lakenheath concluded: ''The.fact
that radar and ground visual observations were made on its rapid acceleration and abntpt stop
certainly lend credence to the report."
I - After 30 to 45 minutes, the RAF sent a night fighter, a Venom two-seater, in pursuit
of the object. The Lakenheath air traffic radar control center guided it in the direction of
the object 10 km east of the center. The pilot acquired the target visually and on radar,
I then lost it. The center then directed the plane 16 km to the east ofLakenheath; the pilot
again acquired the target and said, "my machine guns are locked onto him. " A short time
afterward, he once again lost his target; but the target was followed by the radar operators
I at the center. They informed the pilot that the object had made a rapid movement to
position itself behind him and was following him at a short distance. The pilot confirmed
(this]. Watched by the radar technicians, the pilot tried every maneuver for about I 0
I minutes in order to move back behind the object (steep climbs, dives, sustained turns), but
he didn't succeed: the UFO followed him at a constant distance according to the ground
radar stations. Finally, low on fuel, he returned to base, asking that someone tell him
I whether the object continued to follow him. The UFO did, in fact, follow him for a short
distance, then came to a standstill. The radar technicians then saw the object make several
short moves, then leave in a northerly direction at about 950 km/h and disappear from
I radar range at 0330 hours.
- A Venom sent to replace the first had to quickly return to base due to mechanical
problems before having been able to establish contact with the object.
I Thayer concluded his article in the journal Astronautics and Aeronautics in this manner:
"taking into consideration the high credibility ofinformation and cohesiveness and continuity
ofaccount. combined with a high degree of'strangeness', it is also certainly one ofthe most
I disturbing UFO incidents known today."
I 2.2 The RB-47 Aircraft in the United States (July 17, 1957)
This case, which appears as "unidentified" in the Condon report, has been cited and
studied extensively for 40 years. Physicist James MacDonald published the results of his
I investigation in 1971 in the journal Astronautics and Aeronautics. Phillip Klass, the
aforementioned journalist, then endeavored in 1976 to trivialize the facts, which was
I highly contestable from the outset. The bulk ofthis interpretation was refuted at the end
of 1997, upon completion ofan in-depth investigation contained in a memorandum from
the aerospace technology researcher Brad Sparks.
We will summarize here the important sequences of events ofthe case, which show a
I luminous unidentified flying object detected at night not only by sight and on radar, but
also by pulsed microwave emissions coming from its direction:
I The RB-4 7 was a bomber the bomb bays of which had been converted to hold three
officers each equipped with means enabling emissions from ground radar~ to be detected
and their azimuth direction, but not their distance or the nature of the signals, to be
I specified. In the south central region of the United States, where the aircraft was making
a training flight that day, numerous radar stations were emitting signals the frequencies of
which were close to 3000 MHz and the pulses of which lasted 1 microsecond and
I
I
--- PAGE 18 ---
occurred every 600 microseconds. The radar~ scanned the horizon four times per minute.
I
Three other officers (pilot, copilot, navigator) were in the cockpit and, as a result,
could themselves see out of the aircraft. The six officers were questioned by MacDonald
in 1969. They related that:
I
- The first incident took place above Mississippi, probably at around 09302 (0330 local
time}, when the aircraft, going back to the north from the Gulf ofMexico, was 1·
approaching the coast a little to the east of the Mississippi delta, flying at Mach 0.75.
Captain MacClure detected on his screen a blip corresponding to a pulsed microwave
source located behind and to the right of the RB-47 (at "S o'clock") that rapidly passed
the aircraft and turned around it, departing again on its left in the other direction (between
I
"6 o'clock and 9 o'clock"). The source was therefore airborne and supersonic. MacClure
noted the characteristics of the signal: they were those ofthe aforementioned ground radar
1·
stations, with the exception of the length of the pulses, which were 2 microseconds. He
did not report this incident immediately, thinking that it was perhaps ·a malfunction ofthe
electronics. As Klass writes, at the time there were no supersonic aircraft either in the I
United States or in the USSR large enough to transport a radar, the signal from which
possessed the characteristics that were observed.
- The following incident occurred at 101OZ in Louisiana, when Commander Chase,
pilot, and Captain MacCoyd, copilot, saw an intense bluish-white light aim at the aircraft
from " 11 o ' clock," then jump from their left to their right and disappear while it was at "2
o'clock." Klass showed that this object was perhaps a meteorite the trajectory of which
caused an optical illusion, but, at the time, Chase and MacCoyd wondered whether it
wasn't a UFO. Hearing them, MacClure remembered his prior detection and looked for a
signal of the same type.
- He found this signal at 10302, which was identical to the previous one and, perhaps
by coincidence, came from "2 o'clock." This signal was confirmed by Captain
Provenzano, whose detector was itself also able to operate at around 3000 MHz. It could
1·
not have been the signal from a fixed radar, because its ''2 o' clock" direction remained
unchanged when the aircraft followed its route to the west for several minutes. The
aircraft entered Texas, then came within range of the "Utah" radar [center] located near
I
Dallas. The crew reported to Utah, which detected both the aircraft and an object
maintaining a constant distance of 18 km from it.
- At 10392, still in Texas, Commander Chase perceived a large red light, which he
I
estimated was moving 1500 m below the aircraft at approximately "2 o'clock." The
aircraft was flying at an altitude of 10,500 m, and the weather was perfectly clear.
Although the commander was not able to determine either the shape or the size of the
t
object, he had the distinct impression that the light was emanating from the top of the
object.
At 10402, he received authorization to pursue this object and notified Utah. He
I
slowed down, then accelerated; Utah informed him that the object was mirroring his
movements, all the while maintaining a constant distance of 18 km.
- At 10422, Chase accelerated and saw the red object tum to the right in the direction
I
of Dallas; this was confirmed by MacClure.
- At around 10502, a little to the west of Dallas, the object stopped and simultaneously
disappeared from the view of the radar(~) (Utah and the onboard radar that had just
I
detected the object when the RB-47 had approached it) and from MacClure' s screen (the
disappearance ofan object from a radar screen is less surprising nowadays; it calls to mind
the active stealth technologies currently in development if not in operation). The aircraft
I
then banked to the left. MacClure picked up a signal that was perhaps the one from Utah.
I
I
--- PAGE 19 ---
I Visual and radar contact were regained.
I At 10522, Chase saw the object drop to around 4500 m. He had the RB-47 make a
dive from 10,500 to 6000 m. The object then disappeared from his view, from the
Utah radar, and from MacClure' s screen simultaneously.
- At 10572, still near Dallas, the object reappeared on MacClure's screen, and
Utah indicated
that it had prepared a "CIRVIS" (Communications Instructions for Reporting Vital
Intelligence Sightings) report, a secret urgent radio report sent to the Air Defense
Command, which is mandatory in the event ofa sighting by the Air Force of an
unidentified aerial object. At 1058Z, the pilot regained visual contact at ''2 o'clock." A
I few minutes later, seeing his fuel reserves drop, he decided to return and headed roughly
north toward Oklahoma City. The object then positioned itself behind the aircraft at a
distance of 18 km, as reported by Utah, which tried to send fighter jets in pursuit of the
I unknown [object]. The object, flowing lower than the RB-47 and behind it, could not be
seen from the cockpit, but it was detected on MacClure' s screen until Oklahoma City, well
outside the range of the Utah radar. Then it suddenly disappeared from the screen at
I 11402.
I 2.3 Tehran (September 18 to 19, 1976)
This incident took place during the night of September 18 to 19, 1976. Different
newspapers worldwide reported it more or less accurately: for example, France-Soir in
I the September 21st issue. An American citizen took laborious steps with the U.S.
authorities to obtain a report, invoking the freedom of information act. He finally obtained
it from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). Other U.S. documents have been obtained
I since then.
Interviews with generals and the Iranian air [traffic] controller involved in this affair
enabled the DIA report to be confirmed and supplemented a bit, namely with the mention
I of proper names. The following summary resulted from a reading of the all the
information:
I, - At around 11:00 p.m. on September 18, the Tehran airport control tower received
several calls reporting a strange immobile luminous object in the sky above the Shemiran
residential district in the northern part of the capital. The person in charge of the night
I shift, Hossain Perouzi, went out to look at the object with binoculars. He testified that he
saw a rectangle, probably corresponding to a cylindrical object, the ends of which pulsed
bluish-white lights. In the middle of the object, a small red light described a circle.
I Perouzi reported this strange sighting to the Imperial Air Force Command, which alerted
General Youssefi, the third in command of this air force. He went out on his balcony and
saw an object similar to a star, but much bigger and brighter~ he ordered a Phantom F-4
I reaction aircraft, the mission of which he directed through Perouzi as intermediary.
When the F-4 came to 45 km from the object, its flight instruments and all its means of
communication (radio and intercom) suddenly stopped working. The pilot aborted the
I interception and headed for his base. The crew then regained use of their instruments and
means of communication.
- A second F-4 was sent by General Youssefi. The UFO's echo on its screen was
I similar to that of a Boeing 707. The F-4 approached the UFO at a relative speed of 280
km/h. When it came to 45 km from it, the UFO accelerated and maintained a constant
distance of45 km from the F-4. The crew was not able to determine the size of the object
I
I
--- PAGE 20 ---
because it shone so intensely. Its brightness came from lights arranged in a rectangle,
I
changing rapidly from glue to green, to red, and to orange.
- Suddenly a bright object with an apparent diameter one half or one third of that of the
moon exited the UFO and headed rapidly for the F-4. The pilot tried to shoot a
I
Sidewinder missile at the object, but at the same instant his fire control console and his
means of communication (radio and intercom) became inoperable. He promptly initiated a
bank and a dive, but the object changed direction and pursued the aircraft at a distance of
I
approximately 6 km. Finally, the object moved inside the F-4's bank and departed in order
to reenter the UFO from which it had exited.
- A short time afterwards, an object again exited the UFO and rapidly headed straight
I
down to the ground. The F-4 crew waited to see it explode, but the object seemed to
touch down gently and shine a very bright light over an area 2 to 3 km in diameter. The
crew, momentarily blinded, orbited long enough to recover their night vision before
I
landing at the Tehran airfield. It noted that it lost communications (radio and intercom)
whenever their aircraft crossed a certain zone. It should be pointed out that a civilian
aircraft also lost communications when it crossed that zone. The next day, the crew was
I
taken by helicopter to the place where the object had apparently landed, a dried up lake,
but it didn' t find any trace [of the object].
I·
An attached note from DIA was just as astonishing as the report itself; it indicated that
the information had been confirmed-by other sources and ended with this assessment:
"An outstanding report. This case is a classic which meets all the criteria necessary for a valid
study ofthe UFO phenomenon. "
I
!!:. The obiect was seen by multiple witnesses from different locations... ,
!!.:. The credibility ofmany ofthe witnesses was high (an Air Force General, qualified aircrews, and
experienced radar operators),
I
s Visual sightings were confirmed br radar,
4.. Similar electromagnetic effects (EME) were reported by three separate aircraft,
~ There were physiological e ffects on some crew members (i. e. loss of night vision due to the
brightness o[the obiect),
I
.f An inordinate amount ofmaneuverability was displayed by the UFOs."
The attempt by KJass to trivialize this case shows how solid it is. ·1
2.4 Russia (March 21, 1990) I
This case took place at night in the Pereslavl-Zalesski region east of Moscow. It was
reported in an article by Aviation General Igor Maltsev, Air Defense Forces commander,
which appeared in the newspaper Rabochaya Tribzma ("Workers' Tribune") on April 19,
I
1990, entitled "UFOs on Air Defense Radars" (cf the book by Marie Galbraith
referenced in Chapter 9. 1).
The article mentions the dispatch ofcombat aircraft on a mission to intercept the UFOs
,I
detected. General Maltsev, who summarized over one hundred visual sightings coHected
by unit commanders, stated:
"I am not a specialist in UFOs, and therefore I can only correlate the data and express mv own
I
supposition. According to the evidence o[these eyewitnesses, the UFO is a disk with a diameter from
JOO to 200 meters /320 to 650 (eets/. Two pulsating lights were positioned on its sides... Moreover, the
object rotated around its axis and performed an 'S-turn' flight both in the vertical and horitontal ·1
planes. Next the UFO hovered above the ground and then flew with a speed exceeding that ofthe
modern iet fighter bv two or three times .. The obiects flew at altitudes ranging from JOO to 7000 m.
(300 to 24,000 feet/. The movement o[the UFOs was not accompanied by sound o(anr kind and was
distinguished by its startling maneuverability. It seemed the UFOs were completelv devoid o[inertia.
In other words, they had somehow 'come to terms' with gravity. At the present time, terrestrial
I
I
I
--- PAGE 21 ---
machines could hardh· have such capabilities. "
I 2.5 San Carlos de Bariloche (July 31, 1995)
Source SEPRA
I Aerolineas Argentinas flight AR 674, a Boeing 727 en route from Buenos Aires, was
140 km from San Carlos de Bariloche, a tourist resort in the central Andes where it was
I preparing to land.
At that precise instant, a power outage plunged the town into darkness, and the pilot
received the order to stay on standby for a few minutes before making his final approach.
I When he began his approach, the pilot noticed a strange star. At the same time, the
control center put a second airplane that had arrived in the sector on standby. Flight AR
674 continued its approach, but when it had completed its tum and was in the ax.is ofthe
I runway, an object resembling a large aircraft appeared on its right side and flew parallel to
it! This object had three lights, one of which was red, in the middle of it. The airport
lights failed again, and the runway and approach ramp lights also went out. The airplane
I on standby observed the same phenomenon from its position.
Since the pilot could not land, he pulled up and turned again in order to reposition
himself in the ax.is of the runway. At that moment, the object, which had become
I luminous, moved behind the airplane, stopped, ascended vertically, and once again
stopped. It moved back in front of the airplane before finally disappearing in the direction
of the Andes Cordillera. The crew and passengers of flight AR 674, those on the other
I airplane, the airport controllers, and some of the inhabitants of San Carlos watched this
unusual aerial ballet dumbfounded.
I This case is interesting in more than one respect:
- the sighting was corroborated by multiple independent observers both in flight and on
the ground,
·1 - the phenomenon lasted several minutes,
- there were different trajectories, some ofwhich closely followed those of the airplane,
- there was an observation ofan electromagnetic phenomenon (the lights of th~ town
I and the airport went out) directly related to the presence of the object.
Chapter 3 - Sightings from the Ground
I This chapter deals with sightings from the ground, two of which were reported to the
committee by direct witnesses of the phenomena observed. Here agai~ their testimonies
I are all the more interesting since they pertain to the aeronautic world and the phenomena
were observed during the day.
I 3.1 Phenomenon Observed by Numerous Witnesses at Antananarivo (August 16,
1954)
I Testimony before the commitlee
Edmond Campagnac (C), a fonner artillery officer and former chief of technical
I services for Air France in Madagascar who is now retired, came to testify before the
committee. The phenomenon described below occurred on August 16, 1954, in
I
I
--- PAGE 22 ---
Antananarivo. It was seen by several hundred witnesses.
I
At 1700 hours, when the personnel of the Air France office were waiting for the mail to
anive, someone spotted a "large ·· green "ball" in the sky moving at high speed. The first I
thought of the witnesses was that it was a meteorite. The phenomenon disappeared
behind a hill, and they thought that the green ball was going to crash into the ground and , ,
that they were going to feel the impact.
However, it reappeared after a minute. In passing directly over the observers, it
revealed itself to be "a sort ofmetal rugby hall preceded by a clearly detached green
lens/-shaped portion] with sparks issuingfrom the rear." In the estimation of the I
witnesses, the "ball" was the length of a DC4 airplane, or some forty meters long. The
green lens[-shaped portion] separated itself [and remained] a little less than 40 m out in
front, with fairly long sparks [coming out] in the rear. The craft flew over Antananarivo at I
an estimated height of 50 to 100 meters, an estimation that was made possible by
comparison with the height of a nearby hill. When the craft was moving, shop lights went
out, and animals exhibited a real anxiety.
I e
After having flown over Antananarivo, the craft departed in a westerly direction. When
it flew over the zebu park in the town, the craft caused a violent fright reaction among
them. This is a surprising detail, since normally these animals do not show any agitation
when Air France planes pass by. Two or three minutes later, an identical craft was
observed 150 km from there above a farm school. There, too, the herds were overcome
with panic. If the craft sighted was the same one as the one in Antananarivo, its speed
would have had to be on the order of3000 km/h. According to C 's account, General
"I
Fleurquin, Commander-in-Chief in Madagascar, assembled a "scientific commission" to
conduct an investigation into these phenomena. No trace of this investigation could be
I
found in the Air Force archives; however, GEPA (Groupe d' Etudes des Phenomenes
Aerospatiaux [Aerospace Phenomena Study Group]) bulletin no. 6 of the 2nd half of 1964
described this sighting .
I
3.2 Sighting by a Pilot of a Saucer Close to the Ground (December 9, 1979)
I
GEPANISEPRA investigation and testimony before the committee
At the time of the incident, former Air Force Lieutenant-Colonel Jean-Pierre Fartek (F)
was a Mirage III pilot in the 2nd fighter squadron at Dijon. F is currently a pilot for a I
private company. F was living, and still lives, in the same village near Dijon. His house is
located at the end of a housing development looking out onto fields. Approximately 250
m away is a grove of trees with an average height of 15 mat maximum. On December 9, I
1979, at around 9: 15 a.m., F and his wife saw an unusual object (hereinafter called M) in
the field near their house. The weather and visibility were excellent. M, the dimensions of
which they estimated to be 20 m in diameter by 7 m thick, was hovering approximately 3 I
m above the g round in front of the grove of trees, which partially concealed it. In
complete agreement with his wife, witness F described it as:
- having the shape of two superposed saucers with very distinct contours inverted one
I
on top of the other and not exhibiting any portholes or lights,
- being metallic gray on the upper portion and darker (bluish) on the lower portion,
with a perfectly delimited separation between the upper side and the underside ofthe craft.
I
Th.is color difference could not be due to a difference in lighting g iven the position of the
sun,
- in constant motion as a result of ~ slight oscillations, the frequency of which was
i
not very rapid, like something trying to balance,
I
I
--- PAGE 23 ---
I - not making any noise,
I - not causing any turbulence on the ground either when it hovered or when it departed,
- not having left any trace on the ground.
After observing it for a period of time which was hard·for him to determine, F saw M
I oscillate faster; he had the impression that M tilted slightly forward (as a helicopter does
after lift-off when it begins level flight). F saw M leave in a horizontal direction at a very
low altitude without making any noise, without leaving any trail, and at a very high speed
I and disappear on the horizon in a few seconds. F reported [the incident] to the
Gendarmerie de l'Air at the Dijon air base. He thought that other people had seen the
phenomenon but had not dared to go report it, namely, his neighbors and their cruldren,
I who reportedly made the same sighting.
This sighting by a pilot professionally well informed ofaeronautical phenomena was
never explained.
I 3.3 A Case of Multiple Witnesses at a Russian Missile Base (July 28-29, 1989)
I Heading the UFO reports declassified by the KGB in 1991 is a file relating to an army
missile base near Kapustin Yar in the region of Astrakhan, wruch was related in Marie
Galbraith's book (cf. Chapter 9.1). The English-speaking public learned ofit through the
I Muscovite journal A URA-Z of March 1993. Military personnel from two centers on the
base prepared written depositions of their visual sightings, wruch were made under good
visibility conditions. The file, which is incomplete, does not mention any possible radar
I detections. It begins with a brief summary of the case, the author of which was an
anonymous KGB officer, followed by an account of seven written testimonies:
- Five testimonies from the first center were provided by Lieutenant Klimenko, two
I corporals, and two soldiers. On the night of July 28 to 29, these military personnel sighted
UFOs between 2215 and 2355 hours at a distance of3 to 5 km. Up to three objects were
seen simultaneously. One object silently made jerky movements, with very abrupt starts
I and stops, and periods of immobility. All of the witnesses saw a fighter jet attempt to
approach one UFO, wruch escaped at lightning speed, "giving the impression that the
aircraft was hovering. " Only the noise from the aircraft was heard, whereas the UFO
I must have reached supersonic speed.
- Two other testimonies from a center near the first one concern the sighting of a UFO
from 2330 to 0130 hours at a distance ranging from a few kilometers to 300 m. This UFO
I was described by Second Lieutenant Volochine as a disk 4-5 min diameter, surmounted
by a brightly lit hemispherical dome. The second lieutenant attached a sketch of the
saucer torus deposition. The saucer sometimes moved abruptly, but soundlessly, and
I sometimes remained immobile 20-60 m above the ground. In the company of soldier
Tichaev, Volocrune saw it emitting a phosphorescent green light, hovering 300 m from
them and some 20 m above a missile depot; it illuminated this depot for several seconds
, ,
with a moving beam of light.
In a report that was consistent with the report of his superior, soldier Tichaev stressed
the lack of noise made by the object, even when a short distance away, which prevented
I him from confusing it with a helicopter. The two witnesses, who were joined after some
time by the guard team, had watched the maneuvers of the object above the center and the
:I surrounding area for two hours.
Chapter 4 - Close Encounters in France
I
I
--- PAGE 24 ---
I
4.1 Valensole, Alpes-de-Haute-Provence (Department] (July 1, 1965) I
In-depth investigation by the Gendarmerie Nationale
At Valensole on July 1, 1965, Maurice Masse, who left his home at 5:00 a.m., headed
for his lavender fields located on the plateau near the village. Before starting his tractor at
I
around 6:00 a.m., he lit a cigarette and at that moment heard a hissing sound that attracted
his attention. Emerging from behind a pile of stones, he saw an object resting in his field
approximately 90 m from him. Its shape was reminiscent of that of a "Dauphine"
I
automobile standing on six legs with a central pivot. He approached it with caution, at a
distance of ten meters or so, thinking he might surprise people about to steal his lavender
from him. He then saw two small beings, one of whom, who was turned in his direction,
I
reportedly pointed a tube at him that he took from a sort of bag hanging on his left side.
Maurice Masse indicated that he was totally immobilized in place, numbed and paralyzed,
but completely aware of the events that were unfolding before his eyes. The two beings
I
. J
then got back in their craft. He watched them while they were behind a sort of dome, and
he heard a heavy noise when the object lifted up off the ground. He also remarked that
the tube that was under the object, touching the ground, began to tum, as well as the six
I
·.A
legs, which retracted under the machine. The object then ascended in a vertical direction
before tilting diagonally and disappearing more rapidly than a jet. Maurice Masse
remained immobilized in this manner for about 15 minutes before coming to, then
I
resuming his work and going to tell his story in the village, where the gendarmes, having
learned of the incident, questioned him during the day.
The Valensole gendarmerie force, then the Digne investigations squad, investigated this
I
case fo r several days. The investigations of the gendarmerie established the existence, at
the spot indicated by Maurice Masse, ofa depression impressed into the ground, which
had been soaked in that place. In the center of it was a cylindrical hole 18 cm in diameter
I
and 40 cm deep with smooth walls. At the bottom of the hole were three other bent holes
6 cm in diameter. Along the object's axis offlight, over some one hundred meters, the
lavender beds were dried up. This phenomenon lasted for several years, during which time
I
the witness tried in vain to replant the plants within a radius of several meters around the
tracks.
Despite a few contradictory elements in Maurice Masse's account, the data collected by
I
the two gendarme brigades confirmed the plausibility of the facts, particularly the effect on
the environment and on the witness himself, who slept twelve to fifteen hours a night,
followed by the paralysis of which he had been a victim, for several months. The
I
investigation into the witness's character did not turn up any specific information that
would permit one to suspect him of mythomaniac behavior or of staging a hoax. I
4.2 Cussac, Cantal (Department] (August 29, 1967) I
GEPAN/SEPRA investigation
The Cussac incident has occupied a special place among the UFO cases, since a second
inquiry was conducted in 1978, as an example, at the request of the GEP AN scientific
I
council. On August 29, 1967, at around 10:30 a.m., during a beautiful sunny morning on
the high plateaus in the center of France, two young children were watching the family' s
herd. The dog that accompanied them alerted them that a cow was getting ready to jump
I
I
I
--- PAGE 25 ---
I over the low wall of the enclosure. The boy, who was 13 years old at the time, got up to
I make the cow come back, when he spotted four children whom he did not recognize on
the other side of the road.
Surprised by what he saw, he called his sister, when he noticed an extremely bright sphere
I back behind the unknown children. They then realized that these were not children but
small black beings whose height did not exceed 1.20 m. Two of them were standing next
to the sphere, another was kneeling before it, and the fourth, who was standing, held in its
I hand a sort of mirror that blinded the children. The boy tried to call out to them, but the
small beings then hurriedly returned to the sphere. The children saw them rise from the
ground and penetrate the ball from the top, diving in head first. The sphere took off with
I a hissing sound, then rose into the sky describing a continuous spiral movement at high
speed. The dog barked, the cows started to moo, and a very strong odor of sulfur filled
the air. The second inquiry began in 1978 with a team of investigators from GEP AN and
I qualified outside advisors, one of whom was a former examining magistrate.
The highlights of this second inquiry did not have to do with the facts or the account, but
with new elements such as secondary witnesses found at the site who provided
I supplemental information and strengthened the credibility of the case. In particular, a
gendarme who arrived on the scene immediately following the incident found tracks on the
ground at the place indicated by the children and noted the very strong odor ofsulfur.
I Likewise, another witness also came forward who admitted being in a granary close to the
site and clearly remembered a hissing sound very different from that of a helicopter ofthe
time.
I The reconstruction at the site in the presence of the two main witnesses confirmed both
the descriptive accounts and the circumstances that followed the sighting. At the time the
children gave off a strong odor of sulfur, but, above all, they suffered from physiological
I disorders, and their eyes ran for several days. These facts were certified by the family
doctor and confirmed by their father, who was mayor of the village at the time. In the
conclusion of this_, second inquirythe judge gave his opinion on the witnesses and their
I testimony: "There is no flaw or inconsistency in these various elements that permit us to
doubt the sincerity ofthe witnesses or to reasonably suspect an invention, hoax, or
hallucination. Under these circumstances, despite the young age ofthe principal
I witnesses, and as extraordinary as the facts that they have related seem to be, I think
that they actually observed them. "
I 4.3 Trans-en-Provence, Var [Department] (January 8, 1981)
I GEPANISEPRA investigation
In Trans-en-Provence on January 8, 198 1, at around 5:00 p. m., a man who was
building a small shed for a water pump in his garden reportedly was witness to what is
I perhaps one of the most unusual cases ever observed and studied in France. A reflection
of the sun on something moving in the sky supposedly attracted his attention, allowing him
to observe the descent, then the abrupt landing on a platform ofearth located below his
I house, ofa silent metal object. The object, which was ovoid in shape, did not exhibit any
apparent projections, wings, control surfaces, or engine that would permit one to liken it
to some type ofaircraft. The object rested on the platform ofearth for a few short
I seconds, still without emitting any noise, then it took off and disappeared at high speed in
the azure blue sky. The account could stop at this simple visual sighting if there hadn't
been visible mechanical tracks and imprints in the shape ofa crown, which pushed the case
I
I
--- PAGE 26 ---
into the domain of the unexplained.
I
The gendarmerie and then GEPAN conducted an in-depth investigation including
numerous interviews with the witness and his neighbors. The expert's appraisals of the
ground - the talcing of soil and plant samples fo llowed by analyses - showed unequivocally
I
that it really was a case ofan unidentified heavy metal object that had actually landed on
the platform ofearth. The analyses of plant samples taken at the site indicated that they
were not dealing with any type of [known] aircraft, or even a helicopter or military drone,
I
which were hypotheses that were considered and analyzed.
The vegetation at the landing site - a sort ofwild alfalfa - had been profoundly marked
and affected by an external agent that considerably altered the photosynthesis apparatus.
I
In fact, the chlorophyll, as well as certain amino acids of the plants, exhibited significant
variations in concentration, variations which decreased with the distance [of the plants] I
from the center of the mechanical track. These effects disappeared completely two years
later, thus revealing a specific and particular type of traum·a . According to Professor
Michel Bounias of the ecology and plant toxicology laboratory oflNRA [National I
Institute for Agronomic Research] who performed the analyses, the cause of the profound
disturbances suffered by the vegetation present in that ecosystem could likely be a
powerful pulsed electromagnetic field in the high frequency (microwave) range. Studies I
and research are still being conducted in regard to this case and numerous leads have been
explored. None of these leads has-been able to satisfy all of the conditions that would
enable the object that landed in Trans-en-Provence on January 8, 1981, to be identified I
with certainty, and this is all the more true with respect to the detennination of its origin.
4.4 Nancy, Meurthe-et-Moselle [Department], the so-called "Amaranth" Case
I
(October 21, 1982)
GEPANISEPRA investigation
I
The "Amaranth" Case concerns the sighting during the day by a witness, a cellular
biology researcher, of an object that hovered above his garden for 20 minutes. The
testimony recorded by the gendarmerie less than 5 hours after the sighting is summarized
I
as follows:
- The witness was in his garden in front of his house at around 12:35 a.m. after work
on October 21, 1982; he saw a flying craft, which he first took for an airplane, come from
I
the southeast. He saw a shiny craft. He indicated that there were no clouds, that the sun
was not in his eyes, and that visibility was excellent. The craft's speed of descent was not
very great, and he thought that it was going to pass over his house. Once he realized that
I
the trajectory of the craft was bringing it toward him, he backed up 3 to 4 meters. This
craft, which was oval in shape, stopped approximately one meter from the ground and
remained hovering at this height for about 20 minutes.
I
- The witness stated that since he had looked at his watch, he was absolutely certain
about the length of time the craft hovered. He described the craft as follows: ovoid in
shape, approximately I min diameter, 80 cm thick, the bottom half metallic in appearance
I
like polished beryllium and the upper half the blue-green color of the inner depths of a
lagoon. The craft did not emit any noise, nor did it seem to emit any heat, cold, radiation, I
magnetism, or electromagnetism. After 20 minutes, the craft suddenly rose straight up, a
trajectory which it maintained until it was out of sight. The craft' s departure was very
fast, as if it were under the effect of strong suction. The witness indicated, finally, that I
there were no tracks or marks on the ground and the grass was not charred or flattened,
I
I
--- PAGE 27 ---
I but he did remark that when the craft departed, the grass stood straight up, then returned
I to its normal position.
The interest ofthis sighting, apart from its strangeness, lies in the visible traces left on
the vegetation and, namely, on an amaranth bush, the tips of whose leaves, which had
completely dried up, led one to think that they had been subjected to intense electrical
I fields. However, despite short time delays before intervention, the sampling conditions
and then the storage of the sample did not permit this hypothesis to be verified definitively.
I Based on an earlier study on the behavior of plants subjected to electrical fields, it
emerged that:
- the electrical field, which was what probably caused the blades ofgrass to lift up, had
I to have exceeded 30 kV/m,
- the effects on the amaranth that were observed were probably due to an electrical
field that had to have far exceeded 200 kV/mat the level of the plant.
I Chapter 5 - Counterexamples of Phenomena That Have Been Explained
The cases reported in the preceding chapters have remained unexplained, despite the
richness oftheir data. Such cases are in the minority. Many sightings of aerial phenomena
made in France that the witnesses could not understand and reported to the gendarmerie
have been explained after a short investigation by the gendarmerie and/or
GEPAN/SEPRA: the causes of these have been the moon, planets, aircraft, weather
balloons, reflections from automobile headlights on clouds; etc., and, very rarely, hoaxes.
Sometimes the investigation yielded more unusual explanations. We will give two
examples.
I 5.1 A Strange Object Crosses a Highway (September 29, 1988)
I GEPANISEPRA investigation
An auto mechanic driving on the Paris-Lille freeway saw an enormous red ball cross the
road a few dozen meters away from him and roll down below the road. Casting •
I reflections oflight and enveloped in dense smoke, it finally came to a halt in a field.
Troubled by this disturbing observation, the auto mechanic apparently reported it to the
highway gendarmes. On the chiefs orders, the gendarmerie then sealed off the freeway
I and a zone several kilometers around the object. The principal witness and his family were
taken to the hospital, where they underwent a series of examinations. Civilian and military
security officers went to the site of the incident, equipped primarily with Geiger counters.
I At that time, in fact, they were waiting for the Soviet satellite Cosmos 1900, which was
equipped with a nuclear power generator, to fall, and precise instructions had been given.
When consulted, CNES very quickly informed them that Cosmos 1900 was overflying_the
I Indian Ocean at that very moment. Did the red ball come from space? Advancing with
caution, monitoring their nuclear radiation detectors, the security specialists drew near a
sphere approximately 1.50 min diameter. Under the bright light from the searchlights,
I they saw that it bore no sign of the considerable heat build-up or mechanical effects that
atmospheric reentry would have produced. It appeared to be intact, and small mirrors
covered its surface. No smoke or radioactivity were detected near it.
I It was later learned that this sphere, which was intended to serve as a decoration at a
Jean-Michel Jarre concert, had fallen from the truck that was carrying it to London. The
I
I
--- PAGE 28 ---
small mirrors stuck to its polystyrene casing were for reflecting the show' s lighting
I
effects ...
I
5.2 A Bright Glow in a Village in the Dombes Region (March 10, 1979)
GEPANISEPRA investigation
I
On March 13, 1979, the local [gendarrnerie] force ofa small village in the Dombes
region was alerted by an inhabitant who said he had seen an unidentified flying object over
the town during the night of March IO to 11 . In the course of its investigation, the
I
[gendarmerie] force recorded a total offour testimonies, three of which were totally
independent of one another. The first witness, a restaurateur in the village, described the
phenomenon as a bluish and purplish luminous mass slightly oval in shape and around 15
I
meters in length. The light was so bright that the village square was lit up as if it were
broad daylight, to such a degree that the public lighting, which goes on automatically,
went out. Two other witnesses, who were in a car close to the village, reported that this
I
luminous mass preceded their vehicle on the road about 2 m ahead of them. They
informed the gendarmes that this light went out suddenly after an orange-colored light
appeared on each side of the glow.
I~
Finally, a fourth witness, a fish farmer, said he had been awakened that night by a dull
noise and had seen a bright bluish glow. The next day, all the fish in one of his fish
(-------) tanks, catfishes, were found dead. The presence ofa power line hanging over the
I
tank enabled the gendarmes to focus their investigation on phenomena of an electrical
ongm.
GEPAN/SEPRA did the same during the investigation that it conducted on the site a
I
few days later. It discovered very quickJy that the IO-kV power line hanging over the tank
had melted. The information provided by [the French electricity company] EDF enabled
them to demonstrate that since this line was some thirty years old, it was very likely that
I
corrosion and oxidation of the aluminum wires had caused a power arc effect in the line,
probably in conjunction with a corona effect. This would explain, on the one hand, the
bluish glow and the noise heard by the witness and, on the other hand, the public lighting
I
going out. The glow was, in fact, bright enoug h to trigger the photoelectric control cell, I I
which was located close to the melted line.
Finally, the fish died as a result of being poisoned by drops of aluminum that fell in the
tank for several minutes.
I
PART2 I
The Extent of Our Knowledge
Chapter 6 - Organization of the Research in France
I
In I977, the Centre National d' Etudes Spatiales was tasked with the mission of setting
I
up a permanent structure for the study of unidentified aerospace phenomena (UAP): the
Groupe d' Etudes de Phenomenes Aerospatiaux Non Identifies (GEPAN). This I
I
I
--- PAGE 29 ---
I establishment had within it the skills and resources appropriate to this mission, in
particular, engineers and personnel with high-level technical knowledge who were in close
touch with scientific circles. A scientific council chaired by Hubert Curien and composed
of twelve members who were representative ofthe social and exact sciences guaranteed
that this complex and delicate subject would be handled with all the necessary precision.
This council had the job of guiding, organizing, and reviewing the work ofGEPAN
annually.
I Three phases can be distinguished in the progression of the activity connected with the
study of UFOs in France, which culminated in 1988 in the creation of the Service
d'Expertise des Phenomenes de Rentree Atmospherique (SEPRA), which succeeded
I GEPAN, still within CNES:
- a phase that consisted of setting up the organization and defining the procedures for
the collection and processing of data, which is described in this chapter,
I - a phase that consisted ofdefining the scientific method for studying cases,
- a phase that consisted of implementing the previously defined methods and
procedures, the last two of which are discussed in the next chapter.
I SEPRA plays a more limited role in the study of UFOs than does GEPAN, the scientific
council of which has ended its mission
I 6.1 The Setting Up the Organization Phase
I GEPAN's first job was to form a partnership among the different public, civilian, and
military agencies with a view to organizing the collection and analysis of reliable data.
The Gendarmerie Nationale, the civil and military aviation authorities, the National
I Weather Service, etc., were approached and brought together in this organization via
agreements and protocols established with GEP AN.
The first goal set was the rapid acquisition and provision of data collected at the sites
I where a phenomenon was sighted. To do this, in accordance with the directives of the
scientific council, GEP AN was tasked with the mission offorming teams ofspecialized
investigators for the collection of psychological and physical data, such as, for example,
I taking samples of tracks in the ground. In parallel to this organization, various civilian and
military research laboratories were asked to participate in expert' s appraisals and analyses
of the data collected in investigations, such as, for example, the processing of
I photographic documents and radar recordings.
6.2 Participation of the Gendarmerie Nationale
I It was in February 1974 that the first instructions were given tasking the Gendannerie
Nationale with the job of collecting and centralizing spontaneous testimonies on UFOs.
I Previously, these testimonies had been collected on an occasional basis in the regional
[gendarmerie] forces and rarely gave rise to the drafting of reports or to in-depth
investigations (the Valensole case in [ 1965]). The administrative or technical authorities
I did not process or use these documents.
Beginning in May 1977, one of the six copies of the report drafted by the regional
gendarmerie forces was forwarded to GEPAN, which from then on became the recipient
I ofall information collected on UFOs.
6.2. t Role and Action of the Gendarmerie Nationale
I
I
--- PAGE 30 ---
I
Each gendarmerie force possesses a manual, the "gendarmerie handbook," which
contains all of the instructions on the procedures to be followed in the collection of data
on unidentified aerospace phenomena. Depending on the degree ofcomplexity of the case
I
reported, the level of intervention may range from the simple transcript of a testimony to
an actual investigation, which may be conducted jointly with the GEP AN/SEPRA
departments at the locations of sightings and often results in an in-depth report .
I
6.2.2 Use of Data Collected by the Gendarmerie Nationale I
Once the information has been collected locally by the gendarmerie, it is forwarded in
the form ofa report to the Gendannerie Nationale headquarters in Paris, which issues a
copy of it to GEP AN/SEPRA. The latter processes it at two different levels:
I
- at the first level, the report is analyzed, then entered into a database, and perhaps is
processed statistically for the purpose of establishing classifications and typologies of
phenomena,
I
- at the second level, which relates to more complex "UAP D" (category D unidentified
aerospace phenomena) cases, the investigation in the field generates a set of research
activities with respect to elements for furt her processing that results in the drafting ofa
I
detailed, in-depth investigation report~the report may be used for track interpretation
studies. I
6.2.3.Assessment and Results of the Cooperation with the Gendarmerie Nationale
Since 1974, over 3,000 gendarmerie reports representing an average ofthree
I
spontaneous testimonies per document have been collected and forwarded to
GEP AN/SEPRA. Added to this are some one hundred investigations and interventions in
the field, conducted jointly with the local [gendarmerie] forces. AU of these have
I
permitted the characterization of a set of rare, natural and artificial phenomena that have
occurred with varying frequency which would not have been able to be identified without
this type of organization. Thanks to this collaboration, it has been possible to study UFO
I
cases like the Trans-en-Provence and "Amaranth" cases (see Chapter 4) under excellent
conditions, showing that there was a remnant of events the nature of which had yet to be
identified. A volume of information describing the objectives sought by CNES in the
I
study of UFOs was widely disseminated to all of the regional [gendarmerie] forces.
Supplemental information and training, [end of line cut off] direction of officers and
lower-level gendarmes, is regularly provided by the Gendarmerie Nationale schools to
I
sensitize the [gendarmerie] force commanders to this subject.
I
The results of this collaboration could be more effective. Regular updating of the data
collection procedures would be desirable, as well as shorter time delays before
I
intervention for investigations between the time the local [gendarmerie] force learns of the
case and the time when SEPRA intervenes. This reduction in the intervention time would I
considerably diminish the loss of information, particularly with respect to effects on the
environment. It would also be important fo r the gendarmerie forces to be routinely
informed of the results of work and investigations carried out by SEPRA. However, the I
I
I
--- PAGE 31 ---
I resources currently available in terms of personnel and budget allocations do not permit a
I response with the efficacy desired.
6.3 Participation of the Air Force
I Just after World War II, the first reports of French aeronautic UFO sightings were
collected and archived by the Air Force Chiefof Staff's Office of Planning and Studies
I (EMAAIBPE).
When GEP AN was created, a memorandum of understanding defined the respective
roles of the two agencies for the processing of information relating to cases of military
I aeronautic sightings. In principle, all UFO sightings must be reported to the military air
[traffic] control center in question, which forwards the information to the Air Operations
Center (CCOA) in Tavemy. The latter is responsible, in collaboration with the Air Force
I Chief of Staff's Space Office, for forwarding it to GEPAN/SEPRA. At the same time, all
radar information is recorded in the radar control centers and kept for a minimum of one
month and longer on request. This information is made available to investigators if
I needed.
A protocol established with the Anny defines the conditions for the forwarding of
information collected in flight by pilots of the Army Air Corps (ALAT).
I
6.4 Participation of the Civil Aviation Authority
I The same type of organization and procedures is used by the civil aviatiori authority to
collect and process the information relating to UFO sightings made by civilian pilots. A
I protocol signed between the Civil Aviation Directorate (DGAC) and CNES permits
GEPA.N/SEPRA to have access to UFO sighting reports drafted by national and foreign
airlines crews. To this end, a sighting report form prepared jointly by DGAC and
I GEPAN/SEPRA is made available to crews at the air [traffic] control centers of the civil
aviation authority and airlines. In addition, the radio conversations between the crew and
the air [traffic] control [center] are routinely recorded and attached to the detailed sighting
I report.
There is also a regulation concerning flight incidents that could involve safety. In this
case, the flight captain must follow the "Airrniss" procedure, which routinely triggers an
I investigation by the DGAC.
I 6.5 Additional Research Resources
Numerous civilian (public or private) and military bodies contribute to the expert
I appraisals performed in investigations and work by GEPAN/SEPRA. This involvement
takes place at two levels, either in the collection of data in the field and the utilization of
sighting reports or in the
I analysis of data after the expert's appraisal and the theoretical and experimental research
that are deemed necessary.
I Cooperation agreements have been established, particularly with various bodies that can
benefit in return from the results of investigations of interest to their own area of study,
I
I
--- PAGE 32 ---
for example:
I
- lightning (EDF, CEA [French Atomic Energy Commission], the National Weather
Service, ONERA, CEAT [Toulouse Aeronautic Test Center]),
- meteors (CNRS [National Center for Scientific Research], DGA [French General
I
Delegation for Annaments]),
- line disturbances (EDF, France Telecom [French telecommunications company]), I
- group sociology and, in particular, sects (CNRS, universities),
- photography, the study of films, the processing of satellite imagery (Flex.image
company). I
The following three applications should be emphasized:
I
6.5.1 Sample Analysis
GEP AN/ SEPRA is supported by various civilian and military laboratories, including
I
those of the Etablissement Technique Central de l' Annement (ETCA), [Central Technical
Annaments Institution] for analyzing soil and plant samples collected during the course of
investigations.
I
6.5.2 Use of Photographs
I
Image processing work was performed at ETCA between 1981 and 1988. This work
enabled the techniques and procedures, listed in GEP AN technical memorandum no. 18,
I
for studying supposed UFO photographs to be defined. Diffraction filters were_ issued to
each gendannerie regional unit to permit on-site collection of information over the light
spectrum emitted.
I
6.5.3 Sky Surveillance System I
A system called "ORION' was studied and partially deployed by [the Ministry of]
Defense for the purpose of monitoring, identifying, and predicting the passage of satellites,
particularly over national territory. It should meet, at least partially, the need for the
I
surveillance ofUFO-type light phenomena. The system consists of
- the current surveillance and tracking radar systems and listening antenna on the ship
Monge,
I
- two radar and optical surveillance systems and one optical imaging system:
• the "GRAVES" surveillance radar system, which will be capable of detecting
objects from I n12 [in size] at a distance of 1500 km,
I
• the "SPOC" [Sky Observation Probe System] optical surveillance system, which
uses CCD cameras to detect and determine the trajectory of orbiting satellites or I
magnitude 7 to 8 space debris (the installation of equipment at two sites is currently under
way),
- finally, the development of the 4 m diameter "SOLSTICE'' telescope, which may be
provided with adaptive optics, for the observation of objects m geostationary orbit
I
(36,000 km).
I
I
I
--- PAGE 33 ---
I
I Chapter 7 - Method and Results of GEPAN/SEPRA
7.1 Method Developed by GEPAN
I GEPAN developed an original method for studying rare, randomly occuning
phenomena. Meteorites are among these phenomena. Scientists have long refused to
I consider sightings of stones that have fallen from the sky, which are generally reported by
rural inhabitants. Fortunately, in 1803, the physicist Jean-Baptiste Biot conducted an in
depth investigation in the village of Laigle in Orne [Department] about three weeks after_it
I was reported_ that stones had fallen from the sky. Biot examined numerous stones and
certain evidence (broken branches, perforated roofs, fires) and questioned many
independent witnesses. He prepared a convincing report that gave scientific ~xistence to
I meteorites.
The method developed by GEP AN was approved by its scientific council. It basically
consists of identifying initially unknown phenomena and perfonning a joint analysis of four
I types of data concerning:
- witnesses: physiology, psychology, etc.,
I - testimonies: accounts, reactions to questions, general behavior, etc.,
- the physical environment: weather, air traffic, photographs, radar data, traces left on
the environment, etc.,
I - the_psychosocial_environment: readings and beliefs of witnesses, possible influence of
the media and various groups on these witnesses, etc.
Gendarmerie reports often contain sufficient data in order to be able to identify the
I phenomenon sighted. In many cases, the phenomenon turns out to be an airplane, a
planet, a satellite, etc. In other cases, a fairly large supplemental investigation is
conducted by GEPAN/SEPRA. An in-depth study can take up to two years. The analysis
I of traces left on the environment may result in specialized laooratories being called on for
assistance (see the Trans-en-Provence and "Amaranth,, cases in Chapter 4).
Finally research was conducted in collaboration with the universities in order to perfect
I the investigation method. CNES, out of a concern for scientific precision, adopted the
term "UAP" instead of the term UFO, which is more well known but more restrictive.
GEPAN is the group that studies UAPs.
I 7.2 First Classification of UAPs (Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena)
I After a study is conducted, each case is classified by GEPAN/SEPRA into one of the
following four categories, depending on the extent to which it has been identified:
- Category A: completely identified phenomenon,
I - Category B: phenomenon that can probably be identified but which cannot be
identified with certainty due to a lack of evidence,
- Category C: phenomenon that cannot be identified due to a lack of data,
I - Category D: phenomenon that cannot be identified despite the abundance and quality
of the data.
Category D UAPs represent 4 to 5% of the cases and are called UAP Ds. They include
I sightings of phenomena, some of which were close to the ground1. within a few meters of
the witnesses. The strangest and most mysterious cases in this category are generally
I
I
--- PAGE 34 ---
labeled CE3s (close encounters of the third kind) according to the classification proposed
I
by Professor A. Hynek, an astronomer and consultant to the USAF, within the context of
the Blue Book Project (cf. Chapter 9. 1). I
7.3 Typology of UAP Ds
The detailed statistical analysis of UAP Ds enables a precise determination of the
I
distribution of their physical characteristics: speed, acceleration, silence, shape, effects on
the environment. It is interesting to note that statistical studies in the USSR yielded
distributions comparable to those determined by Claude Poher, the first head of GEPAN,
I
from some 200 French cases, or 1,000 cases worldwide. It would be desirable to be able
to develop UAP D statistical studies in France. I
7.4 Investigations of Remarkable Cases I
Around one hundred investigations have been conducted by GEP AN/SEPRA. Some of
them have highlighted rare physical atmospheric phenomena associated, for example, with
lightning~others have revealed unusual psychological behavior of witnesses caused, for
I
example, by taking hallucinogenic drugs. Several very in-depth investigations based on
analyses of evidence have demonstrated, in the end, the physical presence ofa
phenomenon the nature and origin of which remain unknown. Two cases related in
I
Chapter 4 stand out in our minds, the Trans-en-Provence case of January 8, 1981, and the
"Amaranth" case of October 2 1, I982. The investigations lead us to believe that double
saucer-shaped objects were close to the ground for some time, then departed toward the
I
sky leaving traces on the vegetation and, in the Trans-en-Provence case, on the ground
itself. They are detailed in GEP AN technical memoranda no. 16 and no. 17 (see the
reference list in Chapter 6).
I
7.5 Aeronautical Cases
I
7.5.l Data on French Aeronautical Cases
I
- Twelve French aeronautical cases have been brought to the attention of
GEPAN/SEPRA~only three or four of these can be considered to fall into category D .
- The first UAP D case identified dates back to 1951 . It involved Vampire military I.
aircraft in the Orange area. In two other very extraordinary sightings, which are presented
in Chapter 1, military pilots reported the presence ofobjects with aeronautical
performances inconsistent with the maneuvers ofclassic aircraft over the region of Tours I
in 1976 and ofLuxeuil in 1977. However, not until January 28, 1994, was the crew ofa
regularly scheduled Air France commercial airplane able to collect the first case of a visual
sighting correlated with a radar detection over 50 seconds long (see Chapter 1.3). I
7.5.2 Aeronautical UAP D Cases Worldwide
The aeronautical UAP D cases known since 1942 were initially enumerated in a
I
document entitled Rencontres dans le cie/ {Encounters in the Sky], by Dominique
Weinstein, the French portion of which SEPRA contributed to. The list of sightings I
I
I
--- PAGE 35 ---
I worldwide includes the description of 489 well-documented cases ofaeronautical UAP D
I sig htings the sources of which were duly verified. Most of the infonnation on these
aeronautical UAP Ds is drawn from official sources, government authorities, the Air
Forces of different States, or agencies like SEPRA.
I This list offers a classification according to criteria with respect to the quality of the
sighting. It ranges from simple visual sightings, describing the specific performances or
maneuvers of the phenomenon observed (speed, acceleration, maneuverability, silence,
I etc.), to more elaborate sightings, mentioning environmental disturbances caused by the
aeronautical UAP Ds, such as radio interference or radar jamming, navigation instrument
malfunctions, or even physical effects on the crew (heat, blinding, etc.).
I Between 1947 and 1969, that is(-) during the time of the U.S. Air Force Blue Book
Project on UFOs, 363 sightings were identified. 1952 is the year in which the greatest
number ofsightings were recorded: 68. A total of63 countries are cited as having been
I the scene ofat least one aeronautical sighting. •
I 7.5.3 "RadarN isual" Cases Worldwide
"Radar/visual" cases are those in which a visual sighting is associated with an onboard
I radar and/or ground radar detection. It is noted that:
- the first sightings in Japan and the USSR date back to 1948,
- 30 of the 68 countries cited in the list reported "radar/visual" cases,
I - of the 489 cases in the report, 101 were "radar/visual" cases (21%),
- of the 363 cases in the Blue Book report, 76 were "radar/visual" cases (21%),
- in 1952, I 6 out of68 cases were "radar/visual" cases (23 .52%).
I In conclusion, we can clearly establish that from 1942 to 1995, at least 500 well
documented and recognized aeronautical UAP D sightings were identified throughout the
world, nearly 20% ofwhich were "radar/visual" cases. They furnish proof ofa physical
I reality of phenomena that exhibited paradoxical maneuvers.
7.6 The Physical Reality of UAP Ds
I 7.6.1 An Initial Report as Early as September 1947 in the United States
I We have seen that the work of GEPAN/SEPRA showed that there was an entire
category of rare physical phenomena occurring at varying frequency that could not be
classified as known natural or artificial phenomena. These phenomena, UAP Ds, which
I we have higWighted, both in the aeronautical sphere (military and civilian aeronautical
cases) and close to the ground ( cases ofclose encounters), support other cases of well
documented sightings that have been verified by official authorities throughout the world.
I It is interesting to note that as early as November [sic] 1947, right at the start of the very
first wave of modem UFO sightings, in the United States, General Twining, head of the
Air Material Command, drafted a report on "flying disks, " the conclusions of which are
I very explicit:
I. The phenomenon reported is something real~.and not visionary or fictitious
2. Disk-shaped objects the size ofwhich is comparable to that ofour aircraft do exist.
I 3. It is possible that some sightings correspond to natural phenomena.
4. The very high rate-of-climb observed, rhe maneuverability. and the escape
I
I
--- PAGE 36 ---
maneuvers when the disks are detected lead one to assume that they are piloted or
I
operated by remote control. , ,
5. Most witnesses describe objects with a metal surface that are circular or elliptical
in shape, the upper portion ofwhich is dome shaped, flying without making any
noise in a fonnation of three to nine objects ...
I
7.6.2 GEPAN/SEPRA's Work I
We do not have irrefutable tangible proof in the forrn of material, either whole or in
fragments, that confirm the physical nature of UAP Ds and their artifact character.
Nevertheless, the collection and expert appraisal work carried out at GEP AN/SEPRA for
I
over 20 years confinns the statements Genera] Twining made in 1947.
I
7.6.3 French Aeronautical Cases
The study ofFrench military aeronautical UAP D [sightings] (Orange in 1951, Tours in
I
1976, Luxeuil in 1977) supports General Twining' s conclusions, namely the fourth one.
The testimonies of the pilots do in fact lead one to assume that the objects were "either
piloted or operated by remote control": all of the pilots reported that it was "the object"
I
that appeared to be moving toward them and not the other way around. Moreover, all of
them considered the maneuvering abilities of the object to be far superior to those that
they were familiar with.
I
7.6.4 Cases of Close-Up UAP D Sightings in France I
For their part, the cases ofclose-up UAP D sightings in France are very much in
keeping with Twining' s conclusions 4 and 5. In Trans-en-Provence (Chapter 4), the
expert appraisals made at the site support the local testimony and show that the object
I
with a metallic appearance and circular shape landed, then took offsilently within a very
short space of time not very far from a wall 2.5 min height. No modem aircraft is capable
of these silent maneuvers, nor of this degree of precision when landing. It is hard not to
I
imagine a piloted or remote-controlled flying machine, or else one having highly advanced
cybernetics. I
The other French cases ofclose encounters described in Chapter 4 also strongly
suggest the existence ofan intelligent [civilization] behind the UAP Os. In the Valensole,
"Amaranth" and Cussac cases, once the witness or witnesses are brought face to face with I
the UAP D, everything generally happens very quickly, and the object escapes without
having shown the slightest aggressiveness toward the witnesses.
I
7.6.5 Foreign Cases - Conclusion
The study of certain foreign cases leads to conclusions similar to those drawn from the
I
French cases. One may reread in this spirit the description of the aeronautical cases
presented in Chapter 2. We could also relate foreign cases ofclose encounters, such as I
I
I
--- PAGE 37 ---
I
the Socorro (New Mexico) case, which is similar to the Trans-en-Provence case, but the
I critical overview of which would needlessly weigh down this report.
One strong conclusion emerges from this set of facts: some UAP Ds do seem to be
completely unknown flying machines with exceptional perforrnances that are guided by a
I natural or artificial intelligence.
I Chapter 8 - UFOs: Hypotheses, Modeling Attempts
8.1 Partial Models
I Credible sightings ofaeriaJ objects can be reinforced by plausible technical explanations
of the phenomena reported. Among the most striking observations in relation to the
current state of our_knowledge, we cite:
I - aerial movements canied out silently with very rapid accelerations and/or very high
speeds,
- the shutting offof the engines of nearby land vehicles,
- the locomotive paralysis of witnesses.
Insofar as the sightings that are the most well documented, and the most credible owing
to the obvious competence of the witnesses, come from aircraft pilots, it is their sightings
ofaerial movements, sightings which are, moreover, supported by radar plots, that should
be explained first.
I 8.1.l Travel
There are, from the standpoint of the concept, various principles of propulsion that do
I not require propellers or jet engines that could thus be silent. The most advanced uses
magnetohydrodynamics, abbreviated MHD, but many others can also be considered. We
will review these.
I 8.1.1.1 MHD Propulsion
I The principle of MHD propulsion, which cannot be envisioned in a vacuum, consists of
causing an electrical current to flow in the medium surrounding the .ship At the same
time, the ship emits a magnetic field. According to Laplace' s law, this field exerts a force
I on the current and thus on the medium in which it is flowing; this is the principle of most
electric motors. The medium being thus displaced in relation to the ship, it is in fact the
latter that undergoes, by reaction, a force that enables it to be propelled. It remains to
I create the necessary field and current:
- for the magnetic field, this is easily accomplished by installing windings (like those in
electric motors}, in which a suitable electrical current travels, in or under the walls ofthe
I ship,
- for the electrical current, all depends on the medium.
In sea water it is easy to cause a current to flow using electrodes positioned on the hull.
I This is why MHD propulsion has been experimented with, so far successfully, in the
United States and Japan on both surface and submarine ship models.
In air, which is naturally insulating, it is more difficult to cause an electrical current to
I flow, but air can be made conducting by using, for example, strong electric fields generated
here again by suitable electrodes (air, when rendered conducting, can become more or less
I
I
--- PAGE 38 ---
luminous, which has frequently been observed around unknown objects). As for the
I
magnetic field, it can be created as it is for boats.. However, propulsion is much more
difficult to achieve in air, since, in that case1 it must not only propel the aircraft but first of I·
all compensate for its weight. The electrical and magnetic fields required are therefore
much stronger than for a _naval ship and, in practice, obtaining the very strong fields that
are essential is scarcely conceivable without having recourse to superconductive wirings. I
Still theoretical until a only few years ago, their use in an aerial vehicle has been a credible
prospect since 1991 , with the discovery of superconductors capable of operating at near
ambient temperatures. I
Propulsion in the atmosphere without propellers or jet engines is, therefore, completely
possible in principle with MHD, and the calculations show that the power necessary is not,
in certain cases, incompatible with our current aeronautical engines. The fact that no I
cooling system has been seen (or heard) on the objects that have been observed close up
can be explained as long as the length of the craft's flights does not. exceed a few dozen
minutes. Furthermore, other motors that we already use - electric motors, from energy
I
stored onboard or flywheels if they are not yet powerful enough - would not need immediate
cooling, which duly proves that this problem is not insurmountable.
Numerous witnesses have been struck by the silence accompanying the maneuvers of
I
the objects, which do not create a "bang" even at supersonic speeds (cf. Part 1, Chapters
1, 2, and 3). :MHD propulsion could account for this silence: preliminary experiments in
noise reduction by eliminating the wake and shock wave, albeit under very special
I
conditions, are encou raging.
There has been extensive work on the different aspects of MHD propulsion of aircraft
abroad: in the United States at Rensselaer P olytechnic Institute in Troy (NY), and
I
according to the journal New Scientist (February 1996), in Great Britain and in Russia.
To sum up, based on the current state of our knowledge, an MlID aircraft model is
conceivable in the short term, while the creation of a craft having the same movement
I
capabilities as the aerial vehicles described by the witnesses seems quite· likely to us within
a few dozen years. For the time being, only the quasi absence of perceptible air flow and
noise while hovering close to the ground pose problems.
I
8.1.1.2 Other Propulsion Methods I
In a vacuum, the absence or scarcity of molecules or atoms prevents current flow in the
medium as well as the projection of a mass of sufficient substance pulled from this I
medium. MlID propulsion is therefore not possible, and it is necessary to formulate other
hypotheses. Jet propulsion by means of chemical reactions, comparable to our rocket
engines - even though its performance is more advanced - should not be ruled out a
priori. In fact,. the space phase of the travel of unknown objects takes place very far from
I
sight.
In addition, skins for stealth purposes render them invisible to telescopes and radars I
beyond a few lcilometers or a few dozen kilometers. Consequently, at these distances,
these objects could very well use classic propulsion systems without being detected.
Mainly, then, problems with respect to power consumption and mass to be expelled are I
raised, but the method reviewed below in 8. 1.1.3 would enable these problems to be
partially solved.
More advanced technologically are propulsion systems that call for very high velocity
I
exhaust - a considerable fraction of the speed of light - of particle beams. Due to the
I
I
--- PAGE 39 ---
I extremely high exhaust velocity, the mass expelled is low and expulsion can be continued
I for a very long time. Such particle beam generators that can be loaded on board satellites
have been developed for space warfare in the former USSR (at the von Ardenne
laboratory in Soukhoumi, Georgia) and the United States, especially at the Argonne
I National Laboratory. At present, ofcourse, these beams are much less powerful than
what would be necessary here, but they are already of interest as low-power engines once
out of the proximity of planets. The U.S. probe "Deep Space 1,,, which should narrowly
I miss asteroid 1992 KD on July 29, 1999, was equipped with an engine of this type.
Other methods ofspace propulsion are being studied very actively: nuclear propulsion
using fission ("NERVA/' "ORION," and "DAEDALUS,, projects) and, more recently,
I fusion, which would offer respective gains of one and over two orders of magnitude in
comparison with the best engines at present. Beyond this, the use of power stored in the
form ofantimatter - which has become credible since CERN [European Council for
I Nuclear Research) created an anti hydrogen atom and demonstrated the means for storing
it - will offer gains even one hundred times greater.
This is why a growing number of research centers are doing work on this subject: the
I Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, the Air Force Astronautical
Laboratory (Edwards Air Force Base), where antigravitation is also being studied,
according to the June 10, 1996 issue of Jane 's Defence Weekly. The latter topic is
I reportedly also being pursued in Great Britain and in the CIS [Commonwealth of
Independent States].
I 8.1.1.3 Use of Planetary or Stellar Impulse
I Closer to our current technologies, even though, strictly speaking, it does not have to
do with propulsion, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory imagined, in 1961, that a spacecraft
. slingshotting off the potential [gravity] wells ofsuitably selected planets could attain higher
I and higher speeds without expending any energy. This method is now routinely used for
missions to the remote planets in our [solar] system. One can then envision that by using
"reflections,,, not only by planets but also by stars, as Dyson proposed in 1963,
I considerable speeds could be attained (limited only by escape velocities) and interstellar
distances could be crossed using relatively little energy at the price, ofcourse, of the time
necessary for the departure and arrival slingshots
I This method would lead to interstellar voyage lengths probably figuring in thousands of
years, thus with an order of magnitude greater than lengths anticipated for the envisioned
antimatter propulsion.
I 8.1.1.4 Conclusion Regarding Travel
I To sum up, for travel both in the atmosphere and in space, we can formulate reasonable
hypotheses o n flight without any apparent means of lift in the first case and on the crossing
of great distances, up to an interstellar scale, in the second.
I 8. 1.2 The Shutting Off of Land Vehicle Engines
To explajn this phenomenon, which has been reported frequently abroad, it is necessary
I to consider a remote action. [Since] no beams of light appear to be associated with these
engine , immobilizations we can imagine radio-frequency radiation, such as microwaves,
I
I
--- PAGE 40 ---
which we know can cause effects of this type and which can be easily formed into beams
I
to act from a distance. Under these conditions, microwave emissions from unknown
objects would be likely to create around the vehicle an electrical field strong enough to I
cause, when added to the ignition volt.~ •.?s, ionization and electrical breakdown of the air around
the high voltage circuit of the engi1 l(ignition] coil, distributor, spark plug wire), thus
short-circuiting the firing pulses to the engine mass and shutting it off. I
Since electronic ignition came into widespread use in the 70s, the action of microwaves,
apart from the mechanism previously described, may be exerted directly, paralyzing the
electronic circuit generating the high voltage. We can therefore envision the action of I
unknown objects on land vehicles, including nowadays those with diesel engines, which
are made vulnerable due to their more and more common electronic regulation circuit. Let
us recall that the ability to generate high power microwave beams is within the capabilities I
of our own technologies, as demonstrated by the intensive work being carried out in the
United States and the former USSR to develop microwave weapons intended precisely to
destroy or immobilize enemy electronic systems from a distance, and even to act on
I
perso;1nel. In France, high power microwave generators that can be used for this purpose
are being studied.
This does not rule out the possibility of other types of radiation being used. Charged
I
particle beams would be capable of analogous effects, passing through, if necessary, living
matter, such as the bodies of some witnesses, without being felt by the latter or leaving
any notable or lasting sequels..
I
This can be illustrated by the beams of accelerators used in proton therapy, which begin by
passing through tissue without causing too much damage and becoming destructive only
when their energy falls below a certain threshold as a result of their penetration.
I
This mode of action corresponds, moreover, to certain testimonies that report the
observation of beams oflight passing through physical obstacles; in fact, by ionizing the
air, proton beams generally do become visible in the form of truncated beams of light the
I
length ofwhich is a function of their initial energy.
8.1.3 Locomotive Paralysis of Some Witnesses
I
This phenomenon is less common. It is remarkable in that the paralysis reported only
affect certain voluntary movements, but not respiration or posture (balance, in particular,
I
is not compromised; the witnesses do not fall down) or eye movements. From the
standpoint of concepts, it can be remarked that in human beings posture and respiration
are controlled by the cerebellum, an organ that is independent of the cerebrum, which
I
governs voluntary movements. The paralysis effects observed can reasonably be
attributed to microwaves acting from a distance on certain parts of the human body (this is
also one of the objectives of the work mentioned above on nucrowave weapons). We
I
should note that these effects, among others, are being studied at the Air Force Weapons
Laboratory at Kirtland AFB.
I
8.2 Modeling and Credibility
The fact that we can formulate a credible hypothesis on the propulsion of the objects
I
sighted is obviously only a positive indication, but not proof of their existence, no more
than that of their conformity to the model that we imagine.
In this regard, the history of the technique teaches hunulity, but it can also yield quasi
I
I
I
--- PAGE 41 ---
I
certainties:
I - humility in noting prognostic errors committed in the past. It suffices to recall the
affirmations made by or attributed to several very great scientists: "You cannot breath in
tunnels, " "science is almost finished, " "something heavier than air cannot fly, " etc. It
I would therefore be presumptuous to claim to foresee, based on _our current knowledge and
accomplishments what might be technologies (-----) only slightly more advanced than our
own - or our own technologies in one or two centuries. Let us consider that only 150
I years ago, engines, electricity, the existence of the atom, and Hertzian waves were
unknown! We can also reread Jules Verne: Paris au XXe siecle [Paris in the 20th
Century} or Hier et demain {Yesterday and Tomorrow}. ..
I - certainties, since scientific and technical progress can only continue, supported by
more scientists and engineers than there have ever been, spurred by competition among
nations. This competition, in our now "closed" world will focus on all of the resources that
I once were free: potable water, the deep sea, the polar regions, "air, space, radio
frequencies, etc.
Although it is risky to predict the results of an increasingly accelerated scientific and
I technical development, it is, at least, almost certain that our own knowledge will have
advanced greatly even within a few decades. There's no telling what progress will be
made beyond that time! Under these circumstances, we can conclude with a high degree
I of certainty that movements of objects that at present are just beyond our capabilities will
be technically possible within a few decades, or even a few centuries, even if the
knowledge put into play is not what we are predicting.
I To the extent that the preceding conclusion is acceptable, let us go further and
comment that only a few million years will have elapsed (barring a catastrophe) between
the appearance of man and the future stellar expeditions of our descendants ( cf. Chapter
I 8.3.6 and Appendix 4).
This interval between the appearance on earth of a conscious intelligence and the time
when we will be able to perform the same feats as those performed by the objects we are
I dealing with here is infinitesimal (one to two thousand years) compared with the age of the
earth or even with the 600 million years that separate us from the appearance of the first
living organisms at the beginning of the Cambrian period.
I But the development of other intelligent [beings] on other worlds cannot have taken
place at exactly the same rate as on earth. Ifthe age of these other worlds, like that of the
earth, is on the order of 4 billion years, and ifa conscious life [form] appeared, neither the
I rate of its development nor the epoch in which that world was created cannot have been
exactly the same as ours.
I Under these conditions, even a minuscule deviation of 0. 1%, for example, in regard to
these initial data would make it possible to place such a civilization between several
million years ahead of ours and several million years behind ours.
I Thus the probability of the extent of development of two civilizations in the universe,
and in the same solar system, being equal appears to be very low, and in all likelihood we
have only two possibilities:
I - our "neighbors" are several thousand or several million years behind us (or do not yet
exist as a conscious species), and it will be we who discover them,
- our neighbors are ahead of us, but then the probability is that this advance figures in
I the thousands of years or more, rather than in years or even hundreds ofyears, and if we
can judge from the rate of our own development, their level of development would
certainly exceed our forecasting capabilities in every domain.
I
I
--- PAGE 42 ---
I
8.3 UFOs - Overall Hypotheses
For several dozens of years, the systematic collection and scientific study of unusual
I
atmospheric phenomena have permitted a number of major advances. Ofcourse, on
analysis, a good proportion of the sightings have proven completely explicable: satellite ,
re-entries sounding balloons, etc. This has furthermore enabled the precision of the
I
observers, as well as the veracity and consistency of the testimonies, to be tested. Cases
of hoaxes are, on the whole, very rare and quite easy to detect. The majority of the
observers provide reliable reports, although it is necessary to take into account the
I
problems of diverse assessments.
Most ofthe sightings of all types have also enabled the credible and well-documented .I
sightings called UAP Ds (category D unidentified aerospace phenomena)l for which no
explanation has been found .i..to be classified separately. However, these phenomena are
often attested by means ofconsistent testimonies all the way up to visual sightings coupled
with radar sightings. Ofcourse, if there had only been ten or so UAP D [sightings], this
I
ambiguous file could just have been classified as "no action," but we are no longer at that
point and are far beyond that. Thus we are forced to seek plausible explanations. AJI
sorts of hypotheses have been constructed, and they may be classified as follows:
8.3.1 Non Scientific Hypotheses
-I
"We are being manipulated without realizing it " (by a very secret, very powerful, and
very knowledgeable group of people; by strange, unknown, or even extraterrestrial beings;
I
by spirits; by the devil; by our psychological fantasies; etc.). Obviously, we cannot say a
priori whether these hypotheses are true or false [since] they cannot be proven; their main
drawback is that they aren't much good to us.
I
Parapsychological phenomena and collective hallucinations should be classified in this
category.
The same is true of the idea that is sometimes expressed that the futuristic craft _sighted
I
are actually products of the future activity of humanity. Our descendants of the distant
[future], who have found the way to go back in time, come to observe us...
It is obviously classic to try to reconstruct and observe the past via any of the traces
I
that it leaves, and one could theoretically observe it directly (for example, by discovering a
well-oriented mirror on a planet located a few light years away). It is, however, out of the
question for such an observation to be able to influence a bygone time in any way, even by
I
being detectable.
I
8.3.2 Secret Weapons of a Superpower
UAP Ds would then be piloted or remote-controlled craft of terrestrial origin. There is
no lack of observers to believe that the object with fantastic performances that they saw
maneuvering in the sky is the state of the art of military progress, which would explain the
secrecy in which they are cloaked. Certainly studies such as those regarding the stealth
aircraft or magnetohydrodynamics actually lead to impressive progress. But besides the
fact that it would be extremely unwise to expose to the eyes of laymen and foreign experts
in this way what there has been so much interest in concealing, it can be added today that
I
I
I
--- PAGE 43 ---
I throughout the decades during which these phenomena have occurred, the secret would
I have inevitably come out, especially if the political upheavals of recent years are taken into
account.
I 8.3.3 Disinformation Attempts
Into this category fall special effects and montages, which are generally accompanied by
a lot of media publicity. Some researchers believe that without necessarily lending
I themselves to the manufacture of ultramodern weapons, the performances of high-tech
craft might serve to brainwash public opinion in the same way as other propaganda
techniques. Of course, th.is point of view is a direct result of the cold war period. Any
I means were good at that time for destabilizing the other camp, including fear ofan
invasion by extraterrestrials or the instilling of doubt about leaders "who hide something
I manifestly very: serious from us. "
This type of hypothesis is even less satisfying than the preceding ones because it runs
up against the objections to each of those.
I 8.3.4 Holographic Images
I At the junction between disinformation attempts and extraterrestrial hypotheses lies the
technique of holographic images, whether they be the work ofa superpower or
extraterrestrial crews. In actual fact, th.is technique is difficult to employ. It requires
I considerable preparation because air is very transparent and diffuses light only very poorly.
Therefore it is necessary to have large equipment covering the optical field used or at least
to project an appropriate screen on it, for example, a film ofwater.
I The first method corresponds to theoretical holographic images, while the second is
simpler and is frequently used for spectacular effects, but it obviously leaves traces
behind ... We can also envision using clouds or a curtain of rain, but this, ofcourse, poses
I multiple hazards. Without necessarily being able to judge them at present, the method of
holographic images and associated methods have only very limited use.
I 8.3.5 Unknown Natural Phenomena
This hypothesis cannot be ruled out completely and must therefore be cited. However,
I it is difficult to support in cases where the UFO sighted behaves in an apparently
intelligent manner (approach, pursuit, evasion, and escape maneuvers, etc.).
I 8.3.6 Extraterrestrial Hypotheses
A large number of people today are convinced that UFOs are piloted by intelligent
I beings who have come from a very remote part of the universe and are tasked with
watching us and even initiating contact with us. As appealing as they may be, these
hypotheses run up against all sorts of huge difficulties. The hypothetical Martians o nly
I recently disappeared from the realm of possibility, and apart from earth, the solar system
appears to be totally unable to have produced organized life and even more unable to have
produced an advanced civilization. It is therefore necessary to look farther, to the stars,
I but the closest star is already one hundred million times further away than the moon.
The only contacts that we may try to establish from such distances at present are radio
I
I
--- PAGE 44 ---
contacts. Astronomers have attempted contacts via message transmission and radio
I
listening in the "SETI" and "MEGASETI" programs. Although some enthusiasts have
suggested futuristic ideas to "bypass" the vast expanse, such as, fo r example, the use of I
"black holes," the crossing of interstellar distances by possible extraterrestrials has elicited
much skepticism and the majority of astronomers reiterate that "to date there has been no
UFO case that is sufficiently well established to imply that it came from an I
extraterrestrial civilization. "
Two professional astronomers, Jean-Claude R.ibes and Guy Monnet, have, however,
proposed a scenario in our future in space that includes plausible interstellar voyages. In I
this scenario, which is summarized in Appendix 4, they envision the establishment oflarge
communities in verdant "islands in space, " enonnous artificial structures orbiting the
earth, as described by the physicist O 'Neill, and even inside large asteroids, where an I
abundance of different mc;1terials, including water and oxygen, as well as .ready protection
against meteorites and cosmic radiation, are found. Later on, when our descendants have
mastered the production, storage and use of antimatter as energy, they will utilize it to
I
propel some of their habitats to another solar system. They will settle in an asteroid belt,
start families there, and then visit the planets of the receiving system aboard craft that are
perceived by any possible natives the same way we perceive UFOs today.
I
This scenario, which in essence relies onJy on laws of physics that are currently well
accepted, gives the extraterrestrial hypothesis a certain degree of plausibility; it is possible
to imagine that a civilization that came from somewhere else colonized the region of our
I
asteroid belt and used it as a staging base to our planet. Current progress in the conquest
of space and physics reinforces this idea.
We should point out that some people envisage another hypothesis, which is very
I
controversial: the UFOs do belong to a civilization located in the asteroid belt, but this
civilization itself comes from our planet. Older than any known terrestrial civilizations and
highJy advanced, it supposedly disappeared from earth (nuclear war, radioactivity,
I
pollution; etc.) but resettled in the solar system.
Both hypotheses have to their credit the fact that they place the UFO problem outside
the realm of the paranormal and promote thought about the future ofour planet.
I
I
Chapter 9 - Organization of the Research Abroad
9.1 Organization of the Research in the United States
I
The subject of UFOs is presently very popular in the United States. This is evidenced
by the number and su~cess of fiction films such as Independence Day, Men in Black, and
I
Contact, which deal with this topic. A survey conducted in June 1997 for Time magazine
showed that nearly one American in four believes that an extraterrestrial craft crashed at
Roswell (New Mexico) at the beginning of July 1947. A professor of psychiatry at
I
Harvard, Dr. Mack, treats the problem of the temporary abduction, whether real or
imagined, of his fellow countrymen by UFOs very seriously. In view of the public' s
expectations, what are the authorities doing?
I
They deny that the UFO phenomenon poses a threat to national security, or that it is
evidence ofan extraterrestrial origin. This position has been taken almost continuously by
the Air Force, which was tasked with the study of UFOs from 1948 to 1969 within the
I
I
I
- - - - -- - - -- - - -
--- PAGE 45 ---
I framework ofa project which bore the overall title Blue Book. It was confirmed in the
I summary and conclusions of the university commission in charge ofevaluating the Blue
Book [Project], the Condon ComITllssion. The physicist Condon wrote in his conclusions
that the study of UFOs had little chance ofadvancing science. All official studies thus
I came to a halt in the United States as of December 1969, and the Air Force referred those
who were curious to private ufological associations.
Although it was endorsed by the Academy of Sciences, the Condon report was harshly
I criticized by numerous scientists, particularly at the powerful AIAA (American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics). The latter justly pointed out that the summary and
conclusions of the report, which were drafted by Professor Condon himself, conflicted
I with a number of analyses Wlthin its body. The AIAA recommended moderate, but
continuous scientific work on UFOs.
An amendment to the Freedom oflnformation Act (FOIA) passed in 1974 pennitted
I declassified official documents on UFOs to be obtained as of 1976. One ofthese, in
particular, attracted attention. It was a letter from Air Force Brigadier General Bolender
from October 1969 stating that the imminent conclusion of the Blue Book Project would
1. not put an end to military reports concerning UFOs that constituted a threat to national
security. These were not part of the Blue Book system and would continue, as in the past,
to be handled in accordance with the directive JANAP 146 and Air Force Manual 55-11.
I
"As regards authenticity, only negative conclusions are definitive"
I By Fran~ois Louange,
I Chief Executive Officer of Fleximage Companv
Among the investigations conducted on the subject of UFOs, photograph analysis
represents one of the more delicate areas. In fact, in the public's eyes, photographs
I constitute indisputable proof par excellence of the existence of the phenomenon, which
gives them a very special emotional factor. But photography is in reality a field where one
still finds many errors and hoaxes, because many natural or technical effects can give rise
I to surprising documents: it is becoming easier and easier for a specialist who has computer
equipment to produce a doctored negative that stands up well to investigations. This
can sometimes even prove lucrative.
I Moreover, experience shows that most of the negatives that stand up to analysis contain
only extremely poor and unusable information, often limited to a saturated bright spot on a
I black background or vice versa, which makes this area of investigation relatively
disappointing.
For about forty years, alleged photographs of UFOs, which are sometimes renowned in
I ufological circles, have occasionally been the subject ofexpert appraisals on the part of
specialists interested in this topic. The physical and technical fields that come into play are
quite varied, ranging from atmospheric propagation to photography or video and including
I digital image processing.
The analysis ofa photographic document or video is broken down into two steps:
1 - Establishing or disproving authenticity, uncovering hoaxes, fake maneuvers or
I parasitic phenomena that could have affected the photographing equipment or the original
data storage medium (film, video cassette). This concept ofauthenticity is furthermore
completely relative, because only negative conclusions are definitive and in the best of
I
I
--- PAGE 46 ---
cases a document can stand up to analyses at any given moment.
I
2 - With respect to a document deemed to be authentic, extracting the maximum
amount of information permitting a known phenomenon to be identified or a phenomenon
that is a priori inexplicable to be characterized (size, position, speed, albedo, energy
I
emitted, etc.). This phenomenon will then be compared with other unexplained
phenomena in order to draw possible parallels.
It is important to emphasize that the photographic as well as the video documents
I
available come only from fortuitous witnesses~there are very few opportunities for
significant data to be exploited by reason ofsimple statistical considerations: the chances
of being witness to a rare phenomenon, the likelihood of having [camera] equipment in
I
hand ready to use, the probability of being able to make the proper adjustments and calmly
take professional quality photographs, etc. I
In any case, it seems reasonable to limit in-depth investigations to. cases in which the
following two conditions are met:
I - The original document (negative, slide, video cassette, etc.) is available. I
2. -There is at least one other independent source of information (visual testimony or
another sensing device).
Trick of the eye: lens-shaped clouds
I
I
[Photo]
Central bulge, broad and narrow disk, this is the definition oflenticular galaxies. It is also
I
the definition of a type of cloud, cirrocumulus lenticularis, which forms above 7000 m
altitude and up to the limits of the troposphere. Their very specific shape is due to factors 1·
such as pressure, temperature, turbulence, and very strong winds. But this shape is
definitely open to every interpretation for those who wish to see it as a flying saucer...
I
When military craft play UFOs
I
I
I
Left:
[Photo]
I
Photographed in 1989 offshore from Los Angeles, this unpiloted surveillance unit is a
I
I
I
--- PAGE 47 ---
I Canadair CL-227 Sea Sentinel military drone.
I Right:
This Sikorsky "Cypher" surveillance drone is used by the U.S. Anny in urban conflict
situations.
I JANAP (Joint Anny, Navy, Air Force Publication) 146 applies to military personnel but
also to some civilians (flight captains ofcommercial aircraft, merchant marine captains) in
I the United States and Canada. It stipulates that an urgent report should be filed with
certain authorities, which must in turn file a report, namely with the Air Operations
Command (now NORAD [North American Air Defense]) in Colorado Springs, when
I objects requiring very urgent defensive action and/or an investigation by the armed forces
of the United States or Canada are sighted .
. Among these objects, UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objeqts) are listed along with missiles
I and hostile or unidentified submarines, etc. Disclosure of the contents of these reports is
subject to the penalties of the laws cracking down on espionage. JANAP 146 was in effect
I in recent years and perhaps is still in force. This regulation may explain the frequent
reticence of American military personnel, aviators in particular, to bring up the subject of
UFOs.
I The members of American ufological associations number several thousand. These
associations attempt to fill the gap left by the public authorities in the field of"UFO"
studies. The FOIA brought them a resurgence ofactivity, showing them that contrary to
I their statements, the Air Force and various special departments, namely the CIA, are very
much interested in the subject of UFOs and have been for some time. It pennitted them to
learn ofcertain spectacular cases, such as the overflight of missile bases in 1975, or the
I 1976 Tehran incident related in Chapter 2. DIA deemed this a "radar/visual" case: "A
classic case that meets all the conditions requiredfor a legitimate study ofthe UFO
phenomenon. "
I In recent years, the three main ufological associations have been brought together by a
leading U.S. personality, Marie Galbraith, to conduct a joint study. She is the wife of
Evan Griffith Galbraith, who was U.S. ambassador to France from 1981 to 1985. Thus
I she is well-acquainted with our country and our language, since she lived on Avenue
Gabriel. Supported both morally and financially by Laurance Rockefeller, brother of the
famous David Rockefeller, she traveled the world to meet the principal scientists
I interested in UFOs and to collect the best cases.
She then oversaw the drafting ofa clear and documented book entitled Unidentified
Flying Objects, Briefing Document, the best available ·evidence, which was endorsed in
I 1995 by the chairmen of the three associations CUFOS [Center for UFO Research],
FUFOR [Fund for UFO Research], and MUFON [Mutual UFO Network]. She had this
work sent to more than a thousand prominent figures throughout the world and, namely,
I to a large number of U.S. congressmen. Her goal is to get the U .S. government and
possibly other governments to end the secrecy surrounding UFOs. For the editors of the
book, this secrecy is essentially military in origin: the nation that is first to reproduce the
I exceptional characteristics of UFOs will dominate the world. The secrecy was justified
during the cold war, but it is no longer justified now given the scientific and technical
breakthroughs useful to humanity that one can expect [to obtain] from the study of UFOs.
I On the whole, Marie Galbraith's book is descriptive. It does not interpret the
phenomena sighted (physical modeling or hypotheses regarding the origin of the objects).
Such was also the spirit of the international scientific colloquium organized in September
I
I
--- PAGE 48 ---
1997 by Laurance Rockefeller at Pocantico, near West Point, on the property of the
I
Rockefeller Bros. Fund. Moderated by astrophysicist Peter Sturrock, this colloquium
focused on physical evidence concerning UFOs. I
Specialists on radar, the biological effects of microwaves, photography, etc., who often
were not very familiar with the UFO problem, formed a scientific council there that judged
the papers presented by the UFO researchers. French participation was quite noteworthy; I
it consisted of the head of SEPRA and two members of the scientific council. A summary
document expressed the desire that many countries have a UFO research organization
comparable to that of France I
Colonel Corso's theory I
In July 1997, for the fiftieth anniversary of the Roswell incident, an astonishing book
entitled The Day After Roswell was published. It was written by Colonel Corso, who
from 1953 to 1957 was the military member of the National Security Council Staffand
I
thus was in constant contact with President Eisenhower. The foreward of this book was
written by Strom Thurmond, the current chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, who, already a member of this committee, appointed Corso as congressional
I
attache when he left the Army in 1963. The author states that the object found at Roswell
was indeed an extraterrestrial vessef He reportedly saw for himself, in July 1947, the
cadaver ofone of the occupants preserved in a glass coffin. From 1961-1962, as chief of
foreign technology in the Anny R & D Department, he apparently was tasked with
discretely allowing U.S. industry to benefit from the extremely high-tech objects found in
the wreckage (according to him: printed circuits, a laser, light intensifier, etc.).
Colonel Corso affirms that high-ranking military officers and some U.S. congressmen
know about the existence of extraterrestrial craft in our skies. They have concealed it I
from the public to avoid panics, but full disclosures are going to be able to be made,
because the United States, which has been striving to do this for 50 years, reportedly now
has the means to counter a possible UFO attack. Some of these claims are surprising at
the very least, but the entire contents of the book cannot be easily dismissed when one
I
considers the remarkable career of its author and Senator Thurmond's tribute to him. It is
true that the latter requested that his fforeward not appear in reprints of the book, a request I
that was granted. The author allegedly had not told him that the book was about UFOs...
But it is difficult to believe that the foreward writer, the third in line in the U.S.
Government to succeed the President, and the publisher, Simon & Schuster, were not I
acting with full knowledge of the facts at the time of the first printing. As soon as the
book came out, the U.S. Air Force published a second report on Roswell again denying
the plausibility of the hypothesis of the crash ofan extraterrestrial craft. The first report, I
which was published in 1994, was presented as the first official study on UFOs since the
end of the Blue Book [Project) in 1969 (see "Roswell and Disinformation" in Appendix
[5]). This reaction is not incompatible with Colonel Corso's theories; it may be intended I
to reassure those whom Corso's revelations might worry.
9.2 Organization of the Research in the United Kingdom I
Great Britain has been the scene of several remarkable cases. We presented the
Lakenheath "radar/visual" case (1956) in Chapter 2. The RAF and the Ministry in charge
of it therefore became interested in UFOs very early on, but we do not possess much
I
I
I
--- PAGE 49 ---
I information on their work. Since its creation in 1964, the British Ministry of Defence
I (MOD) has had a UFO study unit, whose [designator] abbreviation Sec(AS)2a stands for
Department 2a ofthe Secretariat (Air Staff) division. Its activity was recently described
by Nick Pope, who was its head from 1991 to 1994, in a book written in a very lively style ,
I Open Skies, Closed Minds.
This department receives telephone calls or letters from witnesses, but more generally
reports prepared from the depositions of these witnesses taken at police stations, airports
I or RAF bases. It conducts classic investigations if it deems them useful. They then
question radar stations or weather stations, the RAF space object surveillance base at
Flyingdales, other RAF bases, the Greenwich Observatory, etc. Its unique mission-is to
I determine whether the reports are of interest for defense purposes ("area of defence
significance").
I Nick Pope, who is currently a MOD career employee, has broken new ground in
comparison with his predecessors. He has given interviews to the press and participated in
television programs.
I He has cooperated with the ufological associations, giving their address and phone number
to witnesses who have written to him. In his letters of response he admitted that a small
proportion of UFO sightings defied explanation and that the MOD was keeping its mind
I· open regarding these. His predecessors wrote: "Ifwe had sufficient data, all ofthe cases
could undoubtedly be explained " In his book, Nick Pope evokes various hypotheses to
explain certain unidentified cases that were the subject of credible and detailed reports.
I He strongly favors the extraterrestrial hypothesis and expresses the desire that his ministry
take seriously the potential threat that UFOs represent in his eyes.
Is there a department that is further developed than his (where he is alone) in the
I Ministry of Defence that would conduct secret studies on the UFO phenomenon? His
statements on the subject are contradictory (pp. 129 and 181 ). Ralph Noyes, who was
one of Nick Pope's predecessors from 1969 to 1972 and ended his career at MOD in 1977
I as Undersecretary of State for Defence, considers the existence ofsuch a department
likely. Lord Hill-Norton, Admiral of the Fleet, who was Chief of Defence Stafffrom 1971
to 1973, shares this opinion. This information is found in a book the foreword to which
I was written by Lord Hill-Norton himself (Above Top Secret, by Timothy Good). Admiral
Hill-Norton was among some thirty iords active in a House of Lords group studying UFOs
in the 1980s. If this secret study department does exist, it can be presumed that it works
I in collaboration with the United States (Above Top Secret, pp. 48-49).
9.3 Organization of the Research in Russia
I The Academy of Sciences of the USSR has conducted studies on UFOs since 1979 at
least. During that time, Vladimir Migouline, a member of this academy, expressed his
I opinion in La Recherche regarding the sightings made in the Soviet Union of luminous
phenomena and unusual objects: "The vast majority ofthese sightings correspond to real
phenomena just about the same as those sighted in other countries. But there is no
I indisputable proofthat some ofthem involve technological manifestations ofa highly
developed civilization. It is also necessary to try to connect them with atmospheric
phenomena," he said.
I This is the goal that his assistant Platov aimed for in a work published in 1992, UFOs
andModem Science. At that time, Migouline and Platov, heads of the expert's group on
abnormal phenomena in the Academy of Sciences, proposed a scientific and technical
I
I
--- PAGE 50 ---
cooperation program to SEPRA, but the CNES management did not follow-up on the
I
offer. It should be noted that in the Siberian section of the Academy of Sciences, the
studies, which are less well known in the West, do not rule out the extraterrestrial I
hypotheses, and even favor it.
During "Glasnost," information was disseminated on the studies being conducted by
both the KGB and by the military. In 1991 , the KGB declassified 124 pages of documents I
from Cases ofSightings ofAbnormal Events over USSR Territory, /982-1990, which
covered a total of 17 regions. One of these cases, which we detailed in Chapter 3,
concerns the extraordinary aerial maneuvers of three bright disks over an Army missile I
base near Astrakhan in 1989. The objects, which were sighted by seven military members,
went from hovering to high speed and back again all without making any noise. When it
was approached by a Soviet fighter jet, one object escaped so quickly that it seemed to
leave the fighter jet standing still in its tracks.
In 1994, Colonel Boris Sokolov sold ABC News a collection of investigations
conducted by military personnel from 1978 to 1988. Earlier, in 1990, the newspaper
Rabochaya Tribuna had published an article by Aviation General Maltsev, who
commanded the territorial air defense, concerning a well-documented visual/radar case
with multiple witnesses (Pereslav-Zalesski, the night ofMarch 21, 1990) in which a silent
I
discoid object went from hovering to a speed two or three times faster than that of a
modem fighter jet. We described th.is case in Chapter 2. I
PART3 I
UFOs and Defense
I·
To date, a UFO has not been the certain cause of any accident or a fortiori any hostile act,
at least officially; no UFO threat has materialized in France, although intimidation
maneuvers have been confirmed (Chapters 1. 1, 2 .1, and 2.3). However, numerous I
manifestations observed by reliable witnesses could be the work of craft of extraterrestrial
origin. Indeed, if it were a question of terrestrial craft, these could only be American and,
despite all precautions taken to maintain secrecy, this would be known. The first I
prototype stealth aircraft flew at the end of 1977; the existence ofstealth aircraft became
known about ten years later, in 1988. But credible, confirmed UFO sightings began in
1944.
I·
Certainly, this subject still sometimes elicits amused skepticism, if not a certain mistrust
with regard to those who mention it seriously, but in the absence of explanations for the I
phenomena sighted, the hypothesis of an extraterrestrial origin can no longer be ruled out.
In this third part, we set out to study, from a strategic, scientific, political, religious, and
media standpoint, the consequences of this hypothesis based on present scientific I
knowledge.
Chapter 10 - Strategic Planning
I
The definition of a strategy toward an "adversary" requires that one know the I
I
I
--- PAGE 51 ---
I adversary, understand his intentions, and ascertain his modes ofaction. In the case in
question, we can onJy advance hypotheses formulated on the basis of the facts observed
I and their interpretation, while trying to answer three questions: Who are they? What are
their intentions? Are they seeking to make contact or have they already done so?
I 10.1 What Extraterrestrials? Who Are They and What Are They Like?
I A relative consistency emerges from the numerous descriptions ofthe phenomena:
saucer, luminous sphere or cylinder, hovering followed by accelerations at lightning speed,
the absence of noise, easily supersonic speed with no sonic boom, associated
I electromagnetic effects that interfere with the operation of nearby radio or electrical
apparatus. Obviously, these extraterrestrials are highly endowed intellectually and are
technologically advanced over us to have been able to achieve what we do not yet know
I how to do. But the rest remains a mystery! Morphology~ physical make-up, type of life,
manner ofcommunication and form of society, sense of values, concept chime,
motivations, etc. If they are observing us, it is necessary to note an apparent contradiction
I between the interest that they show in us and their furtiveness. Rather than observe us, it
seems that they want to show themselves to us and to gradually acclimate us to the idea of
their existence.
I 10.2 What Intentions and What Strategy Can We Deduce from Their Behavior?
I Extrapolation pased on a rational analysis of the objectives that the extraterrestrial
civilization or civilizations could be pursuing should permit us to get an idea of the
strategies that they are implementing and should consequently lead us, in response, to
I deduce the broad lines of what our own strategies might be. UFOs have manifested
themselves in many places throughout the world in recent decades, with surprising peaks
between 1952 and 1954, without our being able to deduce a well-defined course of action.
I What are they seeking?
After the observation phase and the phase ofdemonstrating that they exist, it would
seem logical to us for them to be seeking to leave their mark and impose their will on the
I States of the earth, but at present, nothing allows us to deduce from their manifestations
the existence ofa driving desire serving purposes that we are presently unable to discern.
It is plausible that preferred contacts can be attributed to the United States. But nothing
I contradicts the possible establishment ofother contacts with some European countries or
even with Russia, China, or Japan, [or] others perhaps ... However, it seems difficult to
imagine that they could _have been able to position themselves on earth with the complicity
I ofcertain States. Moreover, the hypotheses ofcontacts do not enable us to deduce the
existence of some status quo with these visitors. Actually, the sporadic manifestations of
UFOs and even the occurrence of repeated waves [ofsightings] have continued since
I 1947. One would have every right to think that these visitors - fortified by their
superiority - are showing their intention to continue to make themselves known in the
most diverse locations on the planet and to continue to carry out their plans, the aims and
I means of which still escape us. It could be that, before I94 7 and after, they have had fears
for the future ofearth, a future threatened by risks of nuclear war. Their influences have
been able to be accompanied by appropriate demonstrations:
I - overflights of nuclear missile bases, an example ofwhich is given in Chapter 3,
- intimidation maneuvers against aircraft as in Luxeuil and Tehran (Chapters 1.1 and
I
I
--- PAGE 52 ---
2.3),
I
- witnesses paralyzed, engines shutting off, lights going out (San Carlos de Bariloche,
Chapter 2.5).
The advances that have been made in the conquest of space and in the development of
I
nuclear technology could be troubling them. Wouldn't it be logical to think that these
extraterrestrial civilizations have established stations, even colonies, in the asteroid belt I
and why not relay stations on the moon? Our forays and projects studied in the United
States for modifying the orbits ofasteroids using H bombs in order to bring them closer to
the earth's orbit for mining purposes could be disturbing them. For the moment, they do I
not appear to be meddling in our affairs, but it is advisable to ask ourselves what they are
actually seeking. Do they want to invade earth? To preserve it from nuclear self
destruction? To learn about and preserve the patrimony that our civilizations have created I.
over the span of centuries? In view of these uncertainties concerning their intentions, we
can 't tell what the future holds and, in particular, we.cannot consider that they will
continue not to intervene. Some of their undertakings in regard to us might, therefore, not I
be innocent in the long term. Perhaps they don' t have any need for our sensibilities or the
politics ofStates?
10.3 Repercussions of UFO Manifestations 01• the Official and Unofficial Conduct of
States
The repercussions have been varied in scope. Based on what can be learned of the
'I-
reactions of States, it is permissible under our hypothesis to classify them as:
a) States that have no knowledge ofextraterrestrial phenomena_ or believe they are not
concerned.
I
b) States that know ofextraterrestrial phenomena but have no means to investigate
them,
c) States that know ofextraterrestrial phenomena and have the means to investigate
I
them,
d) States that have entered into contact with one or more extraterrestrial civilizations I
and that have established relations and/or entered into political, scientific, and
technical collaboration.
10.4 Have Contacts Possibly Been Made with One or More States?
I
Individuals claim to have been contacted for the purpose of studies or with a view to
establishing relations between one intelligent life form and another. Can we imagine direct
I
and continuous contacts at the highest level of one or more States, particularly the United
States? It is true that the position of that country has been among the strangest since the
wave [of sightings] in June 194 7, followed by the Roswell affair in July 194 7 ( cf
I
Appendix 5). If the Americans were able on that occasion or o n other occasions to collect
at least debris or entire wreckage of extraterrestrial vessels in fairly good condition, and
even cadavers of humanoids, a certain type ofcontact would then have been established.
I
First statements and reactio ns are often considered to be more probative than
subsequent affirmations. Thus immediately following what would later become the
Roswell affair, General Twining was tasked with preparing a secret report on "flying
I
disks, •• the existence of which was not revealed until 22 years later in the Condon report.
It emerges from this that these objects truly do exist. But since then the United States has
followed a policy of increasing secrecy ( classification above "top secret " of certain UFO
I
I
I
--- PAGE 53 ---
I files, according to General Bany Goldwater) and constant disinformation. The strange
I conclusions of the Condon report are just one case in point. Why would, and how could,
such an important secret be kept all the way up to the present, despite everything? The
simplest response would be that the United States wants to maintain at any cost military
I technological superiority over rival countries and, perhaps, a preferential contact.
This policy of secrecy and disinformation could have been dictated by an
understandable concern for not creating panic reactions or irrational crazes among the
I public, or the concern at the time for protecting the country against actions by the USSR,
or else, in a more prosaic and political fashion, not appearing in the eyes of voters to be
incapable of providing convincing explanations regarding these phenomena. No doubt it
I would not do to undennine the prestige of the armed forces, which was incapable of
interdicting these violations of air space, and invite attacks against the military budgets on
the part ofpolitical opponents. Anything is conceivable, even the fear of seeing various
I government agencies accused of having lied at one time or another.
Whatever the case, it is symptomatic and illustrative to note that since 1953, the United
I States has equipped itself with an impressive repressive arsenal, which is still in force, it
seems. In particular, they enacted two military regulations, AFR (Air Force Regulation)
200-2 and JANAP (Joint Anny Navy Air Force Publication) 146, the first prohibiting the
I public disclosure ofinformation relating to sightings of unidentified objects and the second
making the unauthorized disclosure ofa UFO sighting by the witness an infraction
punishable by 10 years in prison and a $ I 0,000 fine. The JANAP regulation applies to
I military personnel, but also to commercial airline pilots and captains in the merchant
manne.
I 10.5 What Measures Must We Take From Now On?
I Whether or not UFOs are extraterrestrial in origin, the UFO phenomenon is already
with us and, at any rate, requires critical vigilance on our part. In particular, the
phenomenon involves risks of destabilizing manipulations from a media, psychological,
I cultural, and religious standpoint: panic fear, world wars, psychoses created by sects or
lobbies, etc. These appreciable risks ofcosmic fear, as well as the discovery and no doubt
conquest ofthe cosmos that is to come, henceforth justify, on the part of the political,
I scientific, and intellectual elite, a certain degree ofcosmic vigilance calculated to prevent
any shocking surprise, erroneous interpretation, and malicious or unhealthy manipulation.
I Without a doubt, measures must be contemplated on the national and international
levels. Specifically, whatever the givens are with respect to American political problems,
and in the face of a posture of ongoing secrecy, how can we conceive of harmonious
I political and military relations among allies, and particularly within NATO, which normally
must be founded on basic trust, if access to information of incalculable importance -
particularly technological information - is not shared?
I 10.5.1 National Structures
I If France wants to affirm its presence in this domain, it seems urgent to expand
SEPM which must:
I
I
--- PAGE 54 ---
- increase its human and material resources so as to be able to collect information
I
relating to all UFO manifestations, both in Europe and throughout the world,
- expand its investigatThis text is truncated. The complete file is available at the official source.
View the official fileCongressional Context
Where this record connects to the congressional record and the people in it.
- Involves OrganizationDIA (Defense Intelligence Agency)
- Referenced in LegislationNational Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024Connected through DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency)
- Referenced in LegislationJames M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023Connected through DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency)
- Referenced in LegislationServicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025Connected through DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency)
Related Intelligence
CaseDECLASSIFIED
Roswell Incident
In 1947, a rancher near Roswell, New Mexico found debris that the military initially called a flying saucer, then retracted as a weather balloon, later identified as a classified surveillance device.
Open fileOrganization
DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency)
The U.S. military intelligence agency that funded and oversaw AATIP-era research and produced reference documents on advanced aerospace topics.
Open file