255_413270_UFO's_and_Defense_What_Should_we_Prepare_For

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 also 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, | 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. Butit’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, COO ee

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.
JTLLS -

Daw 4S ProtisED, HELE
1% THE FRENCH CooMETA KEPOPT,
You wie wore We FACE BY
Jove. Ferree. CouNrHePART Ane
List OF Copii ii Biiees NPS.
x PS 9PCRE WIT? a fewATE—
NOT GOVERNMENT — az PORT Ber
tHE Garry Ae Be NATE
op HE Phere tynlrs yee, £
Thdlk, MECEMMENDS 17 70 ad
Arences Ale INELUDEP Fee
ove PeecAt.. Or L4AZS OF
THe LARLE Deewnev7T WE AVE
You 15 A SuaiwAry OF TRE REPORT.
SLALLWWPEP TD

Ue paven!'S TE STO yy Sry
DocumMEL7ATIO

Ry

Sj

Toun CH

MS SP PPORTING-
13 ee | Pek: Sey ofe Av TRAFAIC.

Copmeték AT AIP Gary Ly THAN
TICWAL Arie@okr ~ ERIE house -
13 op G0O5- PLEASE READ TRE
ene RAPAR SECTION FROM Pb2
|

Few EVE,
For Reservations Call 1-800-HOTELS 1

z ALUAYS THe. OF PVILEr S|

"THERE Age Mehle THis Tusk
peaed Arp Eee TH AGE
DreAarien F Ww youn Wnocsoery,
Hekate a2

THis Pepa) Fete eb VS
AND if THERE AE Quesrip os —
OF Covese CAtt png (ewan FALE
Ar GPF 4 Nol 202 &78- FeeD-

las Scop 7 ea ala

Pare

L

For Reservations Call 1-800-HOTELS 1
UFOs and Defense:
What Should We Prepare For?

-An independent report on UFOs written by the French association
COMETA. This report details the results of a study by the Institute of
Higher Studies for National Defence.-

This paper originally appeared in a special issue of the magazine VSD
published in France in July 1999.

UFOs and Defense

--The COMETA Report--
amma wePeE BP ew SP we Bee SS Se ee

“Stripping the UFO phenomenon of its irrational layer”

Foreword by Professor André Lebeau, Former chairman of the Centre National
d’Etudes Spatiales
(CNES) [French National Center for Space Studies]

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,
outside the realm of science. Such was the case with stones falling from the sky, which
was long considered in our country to be the stuff of fable. However, the day that a
meteorite shower over the town of Laigle permitted a collective and indisputable
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 of this type pose a preliminary problem for the scientific approach: does a
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
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
rare, is collectively and indisputably visible, it is easy to elevate it to the status of scientific
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
religious dimension. Thus collective and simultaneous observation plays the same role as
the reproducibility of experiments.

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
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
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
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
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
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
the value of scientific method to consider that the very existence of a 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,
by the work performed by GEPAN, which later became SEPRA. The significant place
granted to sightings, to testimonies, and to the analysis of cases that have been explained
shows the major role played here by the establishment of facts. But we also find in this
document a reflection

on the hypothesis of extraterrestrial intelligence and of the

importance that it could have if studies came together to confirm it.

This report is useful in that it contributes toward stripping the phenomenon of UFOs of
its irrational layer. When all is said and done, the question of determining whether or not
those who created this report believe in the existence of extraterrestrial visitors, concealed
in a variety of phenomena that are surprising in appearance but commonplace with respect

to their cause, is of no real importance. What a scientist believes is important in the

conducting of his research because this is what motivates and drives him. But his belief is
not important to the results of his research nor does it have any effect on those results if he

is rigorous.

Table of Contents

PREFACE Page 5
FOREWORD Page 6
INTRODUCTION Page 7
PART 1 FACTS AND TESTIMONIES
Chapter 1 Testimonies of French Pilots Page 9
Chapter 2 Aeronautical Cases Throughout the World Page 12
Chapter 3 Sightings from the Ground Page 17
Chapter 4 — Close Encounters in France Page 20
Chapter 5 Counterexamples of Phenomena That Have Been Explained
Page 24
PART 2 THE EXTENT OF OUR KNOWLEDGE
Chapter 6 Organization of the Research in France
Page 27
Chapter 7 Methods and Results of GEPAN/SEPRA Page 31
Chapter 8 UFOs: Hypotheses, Modeling Attempts Page 35
Chapter 9 Organization of the Research Abroad Page 42
PART 3 UFOs AND DEFENSE
Chapter 10 Strategic Planning Page 55
Chapter 11 Aeronautical Implications Page 59
Chapter 12 Scientific and Technical Implications Page 62
Chapter 13 Political and Religious Implications Page 64
Chapter 14 Media Implications Page 69
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Page 71
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Radar Detection in France Page 74
Appendix 2 Astronomers’ Sightings
Page 74
Appendix 3. Life in the Universe Page 75
Appendix 4 Colonization of Space Page 75
Appendix 5 The Roswell Affair - Disinformation Page 77

Appendix 6 The Long History of the UFO Phenomenon - Elements of a
Chronology Page 80
Appendix 7 Reflections on Various Psychological, Sociological,
and Political Aspects of the UFO Phenomenon Page
82
REFERENCES Page 87
GLOSSARY Page 90

The photo section from pages 43 to 50, as well as pages 2 and 91, were not part of
the initial report

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. Société anonyme with FF 250,000 in capital, in business
for 99 years. Sole Chief Executive Officer: Daniel Denis. Publication Director: Daniel
Denis. Art Director: Richard Yotis. Editorial Assistant: Jacques Péron. Illustrations and
Technical Consulting: Bernard Thouanel. Editorial Dept. 01 55 21 00 50. E- mail:
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,

UFOs AND DEFENSE

What should we prepare for?

COMETA, an association governed by the Law of July 1, 1901.

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
Roule, 92220 Neuily-sur-Seine. Joint Appeals Board No.: 59521. ISSN 1278-916 X.
Copyright deposit: July 1999.

© GS. Presse Communication. The editorial department is not responsible for the loss of
or damage to texts or photos that are sent to it for consideration. Reproduction in whole
or in part of any material published in the magazine is prohibited.

Cover:

Photo taken on September 4, 1971, directly over the Tilaran range in Central America
by an airplane from the National Geographic Institute of Costa Rica (Bernard Thouanel
collection).
“Concrete problems are raised that call for a response
in terms of action”

by General Bernard Norlain,
Former director of the Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense
Nationale

[Institute for Advanced National Defense Studies
(IHEDN)]

When General Letty visited me in March 1995 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 of the 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.

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 P Air [Air
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
then presented his results, and a well-known astronomer described a scientifically
acceptable version of the extraterrestrial hypothesis

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 he coordinated. The list of high-level civilian and military degrees
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.

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 terms of action. The makeup of
COMETA [Committee for In-Depth Studies], which is the name of the committee, took
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 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
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 of the hypotheses”

a
memeenman wm et HH SS

by Denis Letty,
Air Force General, 2nd Section, AA (35)

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 unidentified flying
objects, or UFOs, and the extraterrestrial hypothesis, in particular. UFOs are now a part
of our media environment; the films, television broadcasts, books, advertisements, etc.,
dealing with UFOs amply demonstrate this.

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 Défense Nationale
(IHEDN) to take stock of the subject. Along with qualified experts from extremely varied
backgrounds, they are grouped together to form a private in-depth fact-finding committee,
which was christened COMETA.

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. André Lebeau,
former chairman of the Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales, without whom COMETA
would not have been born.

In addition, I wish to acknowledge the various people who agreed to give their
testimony or to contribute to this study, and namely:
Jean-Jacques Vélasco, Head of SEPRA at CNES,
Francois Louange, Chief Executive Officer of Fleximage,
Jean-Charles Duboc, Jean-Pierre Fartek, René Giraud, civilian and military
pilots,
Edmond Campagnac, former technical director of Air France at Antananarivo,
Michel Perrier, Squadron Commander, Gendarmerie Nationale
M. Soun, of the Direction Générale de I’ Aviation Civile [Civil Aviation Agency]
Joseph Domange, Air Force General, Auditors Association delegate general.

I must also thank the commander of the Air Force Air Operations Command Center for
its participation during the investigation into flight AF 3532 on January 28, 1994.

Among the members of COMETA who spared no effort for close to three years, it is
possible for me to list:
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,
Jean Dunglas, Doctor of Engineering (Ret.), in Water and Foredtry Management AR
(48)
Bruno Le Moine, Air Force General, 2nd Section, AA (41),
Francoise Lépine, Fondation pour les Etudes de Défense [Foundation for Defense
Studies], AA (33),
Christian Marchal, Chief Mining Engineer, Research Director at ONERA
[National Aerospace Study and Research Office],
Marc Merlo, Admiral, 2nd Section, AA (35),
Alain Orszag, Doctor of Physical Sciences, Weapons Engineer General, 2nd
Section.
(1): AA or AR xx: auditor of national or regional promotion no. xx.

INTRODUCTION

In 1976, a committee of the Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense Nationale (IHEDN)
chaired by General Blanchard, of the Gendarmerie Nationale, opened the unidentified
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 committee were followed by the creation of the Groupe d’Etude
des Phénoménes Aérospatiaux Non Identifiés (GEPAN) [Unidentified Aerospace
Phenomena Study Group], the precursor to the current Service d’Expertise des
Phénoménes de Rentrée Atmosphérique (SEPRA) [Atmospheric Reentry Phenomena ;
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
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 of films or television broadcasts on this subject.

For the sake of convenience with respect to language, we will use the term UFO
(Unidentified Flying Object) generally, instead of the more scientific term UAP
(Unidentified Aerospace Phenomenon).

Without a doubt, the phenomenon remains and the number of sightings, which are
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,
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
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.

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
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
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
advisable to eliminate here and now.

PART 1

Facts and Testimonies

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:

- three testimonies of French civilian and military pilots who encountered UFOs in flight,

- five major aeronautical cases in the world,

- three sightings from the ground,

- four cases of close 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
cases has been explained, whereas the majority of times the investigations enable the origin
of the phenomena observed by the witnesses to be determined; we will give two significant
examples of this.

Chapter 1 - Testimonies of French Pilots

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 evaluated
better than other aerial phenomena since they pertain to the aeronautic world.

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
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
flyover when the Mirage IV was returning, the automatic pilot engaged, to Luxeuil after a
night mission. [The aircraft was] at an altitude of 9600 m and flying at a speed of “Mach
0.9.” The flight conditions were very good. The pilot (P), Hervé Giraud, and his
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 Contrexéville
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
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
part of the controller is a standard emergency procedure; it shows that the controller is so
surprised by the crew’s question that he suspects an oxygen problem capable of causing a
“hallucination.”

“Assailant Al” maintained its course towards the Mirage IV. P initiated a bank to the
right toward Al, a bank which he was forced to keep tightening (3 to 4 g) in order to try
to maintain visual contact on Al and to keep it from positioning itself to the rear. Despite
this maneuver, Al moved behind the Mirage IV at an estimated distance of 1500 m. At
this point P reversed his bank to regain visual contact on Al. 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
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
considered to be a real threat. The glow followed the Mirage IV’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

contact on “assailant A2.” P and N continued their flight and returned normally to the
Luxeuil base.

Those are the facts. Two points should be emphasized:

- only a combat aircraft could have had performance comparable to that of Al 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
no other traffic in the vicinity of the Mirage IV.

" ~ 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 of combat aircraft,
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. This would have been noticed in

the surrounding area, especially since it was nighttime. But no sound was heard in the
region.

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
subsequently, he is Colonel Claude Bosc). 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
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
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
straight ahead, very far off in the distance (at the detection limit of lights on the ground)
what he at first thought was the launching of a 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
on a collision course with the aircraft and filled the entire front windshield of the cockpit
Thinking 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
bright and phosphorescent green light. P saw a sphere (S) that avoided his aircraft at the

i
very last moment and passed over his right wing grazing it, all within a fraction of a
second. P retained the following memory of this incident:

- S was not very large (1 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,

- the center of S consisted of a 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 (-)
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.

1.3 Air France Flight AF 3532 (January 28, 1994)

Jean-Charles Duboc (P), captain of Air France flight AF 3532, was assisted by Copilot
Valérie Chauffour (CP) in making the Nice-London connection on January 28, 1994. At
1314 hours, while they were cruising at an altitude of 11,900 m in the vicinity of
Coulommiers in Seine-et-Marne [Department] under excellent meteorological conditions,
the chief steward, who was present in the cockpit at the time, pointed out a phenomenon
that appeared to him to be a weather balloon. His sighting was immediately confirmed by
the copilot. P, who in turn 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
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
10,500 m and at a distance of approximately 50 km. Taking into account its apparent
diameter, they deduced that the craft was large. They were struck by the changes in the
shape of the craft, which first appeared in the form of a brown bell before transforming
into a chestnut brown lens shape, then disappéaring almost instantaneously on the left side
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 Taverny Air
Defense Operations Center (CODA) of the 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
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 of flight AF
3532 and did not correspond to any flight plan filed. It should be noted that the
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
determined, consequently bringing the approximate length of the craft to 250 m in 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
years, one of which was that of flight AF 3532.

Chapter 2 - Aeronautic Cases Throughout the World
It is appropriate to specify that those cases that have been sighted from aircraft are
considered to be aeronautic cases. This chapter describes five significant cases that
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)

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
objects followed by their radars during the night of August 13 to 14, 1956, were judged
“unidentified” 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
1971, the magazine Astronautics and Aeronautics 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,
etc.). The incidents began at the Bentwaters base, preceded, between 2100 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:

- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
technicians at the air traffic control center suddenly saw the object immediately go from
immobility to a speed of 600 to 950 km/h. The shift supervisor notified the base
commander

il
The object changed direction several times, describing line segments ranging from 13 to
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 knv/h without any transition.

Visual sightings were made from the ground and confirmed the high speed and
astounding accelerations. The regulation telex sent by Lakenheath concluded: “The fact
that radar and ground visual observations were made on its rapid acceleration and abrupt stop
certainly lend credence to the report."

- 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,
then lost it. The center then directed the plane 16 km to the east of Lakenheath; 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
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 10
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
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
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.

Thayer concluded his article in the journal Astronautics and Aeronautics in this manner:
" taking into consideration the high credibility of information and cohesiveness and continuity
of account, combined with a high degree of ‘strangeness’, it is also certainly one of the most
disturbing UFO incidents known today."

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
investigation in 1971 in the journal Astronautics and Aeronautics. Phillip Klass, the
aforementioned journalist, then endeavored in 1976 to trivialize the facts, which was
highly contestable from the outset. The bulk of this interpretation was refuted at the end
of 1997, upon completion of an in-depth investigation contained in a memorandum from
the aerospace technology researcher Brad Sparks.

We will summarize here the important sequences of events of the case, which show a
luminous unidentified flying object detected at night not only by sight and on radar, but
also by pulsed microwave emissions coming from its direction:

The RB-47 was a bomber the bomb bays of which had been converted to hold three
officers each equipped with means enabling emissions from ground radars to be detected
and their azimuth direction, but not their distance or the nature of the signals, to be
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
occurred every 600 microseconds. The radars scanned the horizon four times per minute

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:

- The first incident took place above Mississippi, probably at around 0930Z (0330 local
time), when the aircraft, going back to the north from the Gulf of Mexico, was
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 “5 o’clock”) that rapidly passed
the aircraft and turned around it, departing again on its left in the other direction (between
“6 o’clock and 9 o’clock”). The source was therefore airborne and supersonic. MacClure
noted the characteristics of the signal: they were those of the aforementioned ground radar
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 of the
electronics. As Klass writes, at the time there were no supersonic aircraft either in the
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 1010Z in Louisiana, when Commander Chase,
pilot, and Captain MacCoyd, copilot, saw an intense bluish-white light aim at the aircraft
from “11 0’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 1030Z, 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
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
Dallas. The crew reported to Utah, which detected both the aircraft and an object
maintaining a constant distance of 18 km from it.

- At 1039Z, still in Texas, Commander Chase perceived a large red light, which he
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
object, he had the distinct impression that the light was emanating from the top of the
object.

At 1040Z, he received authorization to pursue this object and notified Utah. He
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 1042Z, Chase accelerated and saw the red object turn to the right in the direction
of Dallas; this was confirmed by MacClure.

- At around 1050Z, a little to the west of Dallas, the object stopped and simultaneously
disappeared from the view of the radar(s) (Utah and the onboard radar that had just
detected the object when the RB-47 had approached it) and from MacClure’s screen (the
disappearance of an 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
then banked to the left. MacClure picked up a signal that was perhaps the one from Utah
Visual and radar contact were regained.
- At 1052Z, 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 1057Z, 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 of a sighting by the Air Force of an
unidentified aerial object. At 1058Z, the pilot regained visual contact at “2 o’clock.” A
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
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
1140Z. ‘

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
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
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
of proper names. The following summary resulted from a reading of the all the
information:

- 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
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.
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
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
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
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 of 45 km from the F-4. The crew was not able to determine the size of the object
because it shone so intensely. Its brightness came from lights arranged in a rectangle,
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
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
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
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
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
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].

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 of the UFO phenomenon."
a. The object was seen by multiple witnesses from different locations...

b. The credibility of many of the witnesses was high (an Air Force General, qualified aircrews, and
experienced radar operators),

¢. Visual sightings were confirmed by radar,

d. Similar electromagnetic effects (EME) were reported by three separate aircraft,
¢. There were physiological effects on some crew members (i.e. loss of night vision due to the
brightness of the object), ;

An inordinate amount of maneuverability was displayed by the UFOs.”
The attempt by Klass to trivialize this case shows how solid it is.

2.4 Russia (March 21, 1990)

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 Tribuna (“Workers’ Tribune”) on April 19,
1990, entitled “UFOs on Air Defense Radars” (cf. the book by Marie Galbraith
referenced in Chapter 9.1).

The article mentions the dispatch of combat aircraft on a mission to intercept the UFOs
detected. General Maltsev, who summarized over one hundred visual sightings collected
by unit commanders, stated:

“lam not a specialist in UFOs, and therefore I can only correlate the data and express my own
supposition. According to the evidence of these eyewitnesses, the UFO is a disk with a diameter from
100 to 200 meters [320 to 650 feets]._ 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 horizontal
planes. Next the UFO hovered above the ground and then flew with a speed exceeding that of the
modern jet fighter by two or three times .._ The objects flew at altitudes ranging from 100 to 7000 m.
[300 to 24,000 feet}. The movement of the UFOs was not accompanied by sound of any kind and was
distinguished by its startling maneuverability. It seemed the UFOs were completely devoid of inertia.

In other words, they had_somehow ‘come to terms' with gravity. At the present time, terrestrial

machines could hardly have such capabilities.”
2.5 San Carlos de Bariloche (July 31, 1995)

Source SEPRA

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
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.
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 turn and was in the axis of the
Tunway, 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
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 axis of the runway. At that moment, the object, which had become
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
airplane, the airport controllers, and some of the inhabitants of San Carlos watched this
unusual aerial ballet dumbfounded.

This case is interesting in more than one respect:
- the sighting was corroborated by multiple independent observers both in flight and on

the ground,
- the phenomenon lasted several minutes,
- there were different trajectories, some of which closely followed those of the airplane,
- there was an observation of an electromagnetic phenomenon (the lights of the town

and the airport went out) directly related to the presence of the object.

Chapter 3 - Sightings from the Ground

This chapter deals with sightings from the ground, two of which were reported to the
committee by direct witnesses of the phenomena observed. Here again, their testimonies
are all the more interesting since they pertain to the aeronautic world and the phenomena
were observed during the day

3.1 Phenomenon Observed by Numerous Witnesses at Antananarivo (August 16,
1954)

Testimony before the committee

Edmond Campagnac (C), a former artillery officer and former chief of technical
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
Antananarivo. It was seen by several hundred witnesses.

At 1700 hours, when the personnel of the Air France office were waiting for the mail to
arrive, someone spotted a “large” green “ball” in the sky moving at high speed. The first
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 of metal rugby ball preceded by a clearly detached green
lens{-shaped portion] with sparks issuing from the rear.” In the estimation of the
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
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.

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 of 3000 km/h. According to C’s account, General
Fleurquin, Commander-in-Chief in Madagascar, assembled a “scientific commission” to

conduct an investigation into these phenomena. No trace of this investigation could be
found in the Air Force archives; however, GEPA (Groupe d’Etudes des Phenoménes
Aérospatiaux [Aerospace Phenomena Study Group]) bulletin no. 6 of the 2nd half of 1964
described this sighting.

3.2 Sighting by a Pilot of a Saucer Close to the Ground (December 9, 1979)

GEPAN/SEPRA 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
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 m at maximum. On December 9,
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
m above the ground 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
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 of the craft.
This color difference could not be due to a difference in lighting given the position of the
sun,

- in constant motion as a result of very slight oscillations, the frequency of which was
not very rapid, like something trying to balance,
- not making any noise,

- 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
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
and disappear on the horizon in a few seconds. F reported [the incident] to the
Gendarmerie de I’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 children,
who reportedly made the same sighting.

This sighting by a pilot professionally well informed of aeronautical phenomena was
never explained.

3.3 A Case of Multiple Witnesses at a Russian Missile Base (July 28-29, 1989)

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, which was related in Marie
Galbraith’s book (cf. Chapter 9.1). The English-speaking public learned of it through the
Muscovite journal AURA-Z of March 1993. Military personnel from two centers on the
base prepared written depositions of their visual sightings, which were made under good
visibility conditions. The file, which is incomplete, does not mention any possible radar
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
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 of 3 to 5 km. Up to three objects were
seen simultaneously. One object silently made jerky movements, with very abrupt starts
and stops, and periods of immobility. All of the witnesses saw a fighter jet attempt to
approach one UFO, which escaped at lightning speed, “giving the impression that the
aircraft was hovering.” Only the noise from the aircraft was heard, whereas the UFO
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
was described by Second Lieutenant Volochine as a disk 4-5 m in diameter, surmounted
by a brightly lit hemispherical dome. The second lieutenant attached a sketch of the
saucer to his deposition. The saucer sometimes moved abruptly, but soundlessly, and
sometimes remained immobile 20-60 m above the ground. In the company of soldier
Tichaev, Volochine 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
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
surrounding area for two hours.

Chapter 4 - Close Encounters in France
4.1 Valensole, Alpes-de-Haute-Provence [Department] (July 1, 1965)

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
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”
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,
Teportedly 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
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 turn, as well as the six
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
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
case for several days. The investigations of the gendarmerie established the existence, at
the spot indicated by Maurice Masse, of a 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
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 of flight, over some one hundred meters, the
lavender beds were dried up. This phenomenon lasted for several years, during which time
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
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
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.

4.2 Cussac, Cantal [Department] (August 29, 1967)

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 GEPAN scientific
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
over the low wall of the enclosure. The boy, who was 13 years old at the time, got up to
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
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
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
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 GEPAN and
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
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 of sulfur.
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 of the
time.

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
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
testimony: “There is no flaw or inconsistency in these various elements that permit us to
doubt the sincerity of the witnesses or to reasonably suspect an invention, hoax, or
hallucination. Under these circumstances, despite the young age of the principal
witnesses, and as extraordinary as the facts that they have related seem to be, I think
that they actually observed them.”

4.3 Trans-en-Provence, Var [Department] (January 8, 1981)

GEPAN/SEPRA investigation

In Trans-en-Provence on January 8, 1981, 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
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 of earth located below his
house, of a 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 of aircraft. The object rested on the platform of earth for a few short
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 of a crown, which pushed the case
into the domain of the unexplained.

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 taking of soil and plant samples followed by analyses - showed unequivocally
that it really was a case of an unidentified heavy metal object that had actually landed on
the platform of earth. 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,
which were hypotheses that were considered and analyzed.

The vegetation at the landing site - a sort of wild alfalfa - had been profoundly marked
and affected by an external agent that considerably altered the photosynthesis apparatus.
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]
from the center of the mechanical track. These effects disappeared completely two years
later, thus revealing a specific and particular type of trauma. According to Professor
Michel Bounias of the ecology and plant toxicology laboratory of INRA [National
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
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
with certainty, and this is all the more true with respect to the determination of its origin.

4.4 Nancy, Meurthe-et-Moselle [Department], the so-called “Amaranth” Case
(October 21, 1982)

GEPAN/SEPRA investigation

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
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
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
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.

- 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 1 m in diameter, 80 cm thick, the bottom half metallic in appearance
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,
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
there were no tracks or marks on the ground and the grass was not charred or flattened,
but he did remark that when the craft departed, the grass stood straight up, then returned
to its normal position.

The interest of this 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
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.
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 of grass to lift up, had
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/m at the level of the plant.

Chapter 5 - Counterexamples of Phenomena That Have Been Explained

The cases reported in the preceding chapters have remained unexplained, despite the
richness of their 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.

5.1 A Strange Object Crosses a Highway (September 29, 1988)

GEPAN/SEPRA 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 —
reflections of light 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 chief’s orders, the gendarmerie then sealed off the freeway
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.
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
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 m in diameter. Under the bright light from the searchlights,
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.

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
small mirrors stuck to its polystyrene casing were for reflecting the show’s lighting
effects...

5.2 A Bright Glow in a Village in the Dombes Region (March 10, 1979)

GEPAN/SEPRA investigation

On March 13, 1979, the local [gendarmerie] force of a 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 10 to 11. In the course of its investigation, the
[gendarmerie] force recorded a total of four 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
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
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.
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 of a power line hanging over the
tank enabled the gendarmes to focus their investigation on phenomena of an electrical
origin.

GEPAN/SEPRA did the same during the investigation that it conducted on the site a
few days later. It discovered very quickly that the 10-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
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
going out. The glow was, in fact, bright enough to trigger the photoelectric control cell,
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.

PART 2
The Extent of Our Knowledge

Chapter 6 - Organization of the Research in France
In 1977, the Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales was tasked with the mission of setting

up a permanent structure for the study of unidentified aerospace phenomena (UAP): the
Groupe d’Etudes de Phénoménes Aérospatiaux Non Identifiés (GEPAN). This
(s

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 of the 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 of GEPAN
annually.

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 Phénoménes de Rentree Atmosphérique (SEPRA), which succeeded
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,

- aphase that consisted of defining 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.

SEPRA plays a more limited role in the study of UFOs than does GEPAN, the scientific
council of which has ended its mission

6.1 The Setting Up the Organization Phase

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
Weather Service, etc., were approached and brought together in this organization via
agreements and protocols established with GEPAN.

The first goal set was the rapid acquisition and provision of data collected at the sites
where a phenomenon was sighted. To do this, in accordance with the directives of the
scientific council, GEPAN was tasked with the mission of forming teams of specialized
investigators for the collection of psychological and physical data, such as, for example,
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
photographic documents and radar recordings.

6.2 Participation of the Gendarmerie Nationale

It was in February 1974 that the first instructions were given tasking the Gendarmerie
Nationale with the job of collecting and centralizing spontaneous testimonies on UFOs.
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
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
of all information collected on UFOs.

6.2.1 Role and Action of the Gendarmerie Nationale
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 of complexity of the case
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 GEPAN/SEPRA
departments at the locations of sightings and often results in an in-depth report.

6.2.2 Use of Data Collected by the Gendarmerie Nationale

Once the information has been collected locally by the gendarmerie, it is forwarded in
the form of a report to the Gendarmerie Nationale headquarters in Paris, which issues a
copy of it to GEPAN/SEPRA. The latter processes it at two different levels:

~ 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,

- 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 further processing that results in the drafting of a

detailed, in-depth investigation report; the report may be used for track interpretation
studies.

6.2.3.Assessment and Results of the Cooperation with the Gendarmerie Nationale

Since 1974, over 3,000 gendarmerie reports representing an average of three
spontaneous testimonies per document have been collected and forwarded to
GEPAN/SEPRA. Added to this are some one hundred investigations and interventions in
the field, conducted jointly with the local [gendarmerie] forces. All of these have
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
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
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
sensitize the [gendarmerie] force commanders to this subject.

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
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
considerably diminish the loss of information, particularly with respect to effects on the
environment. It would also be important for the gendarmerie forces to be routinely
informed of the results of work and investigations carried out by SEPRA. However, the

resources currently available in terms of personnel and budget allocations do not permit a
response with the efficacy desired

6.3 Participation of the Air Force

Just after World War II, the first reports of French aeronautic UFO sightings were
collected and archived by the Air Force Chief of Staff's Office of Planning and Studies
(EMAA/BPE).

When GEPAN was created, a memorandum of understanding defined the respective
roles of the two agencies for the processing of information relating to cases of military
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 Taverny. The latter is responsible, in collaboration with the Air Force
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
needed.

A protocol established with the Army defines the conditions for the forwarding of
information collected in flight by pilots of the Army Air Corps (ALAT).

6.4 Participation of the Civil Aviation Authority

The same type of organization and procedures is used by the civil aviation authority to
collect and process the information relating to UFO sightings made by civilian pilots. A
protocol signed between the Civil Aviation Directorate (DGAC) and CNES permits
GEPAN/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
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
report.

There is also a regulation concerning flight incidents that could involve safety. In this
case, the flight captain must follow the “Airmiss” procedure, which routinely triggers an
investigation by the DGAC.

6.5 Additional Research Resources

Numerous civilian (public or private) and military bodies contribute to the expert
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
analysis of data after the expert’s appraisal and the theoretical and experimental research
that are deemed necessary.

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,
for example:

- 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
Delegation for Armaments]),

- line disturbances (EDF, France Télécom [French telecommunications company]),

- group sociology and, in particular, sects (CNRS, universities),

~ photography, the study of films, the processing of satellite imagery (Fleximage
company).

The following three applications should be emphasized:

6.5.1 Sample Analysis

GEPAN/SEPRA is supported by various civilian and military laboratories, including
those of the Etablissement Technique Central de l’Armement (ETCA), [Central Technical

Armaments Institution] for analyzing soil and plant samples collected during the course of
investigations.

6.5.2 Use of Photographs

Image processing work was performed at ETCA between 1981 and 1988. This work
enabled the techniques and procedures, listed in GEPAN technical memorandum no. 18,
for studying supposed UFO photographs to be defined. Diffraction filters were. issued to

each gendarmerie regional unit to permit on-site collection of information over the light
spectrum emitted.

6.5.3 Sky Surveillance System

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
surveillance of UFO-type light phenomena. The system consists of:

~ the current surveillance and tracking radar systems and listening antenna on the ship
Monge,

- two radar and optical surveillance systems and one optical imaging system:

+ the “GRAVES” surveillance radar system, which will be capable of detecting
objects from 1 mz [in size] at a distance of 1500 km,

+ the “SPOC” [Sky Observation Probe System] optical surveillance system, which
uses CCD cameras to detect and determine the trajectory of orbiting satellites or
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 in geostationary orbit
(36,000 km).
Chapter 7 - Method and Results of GEPAN/SEPRA

7.1 Method Developed by GEPAN

GEPAN developed an original method for studying rare, randomly occurring
phenomena. Meteorites are among these phenomena Scientists have long refused to
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
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 existence to
meteorites.

The method developed by GEPAN was approved by its scientific council. It basically
consists of identifying initially unknown phenomena and performing a joint analysis of four
types of data concerning:

- witnesses: physiology, psychology, etc.,

- testimonies: accounts, reactions to questions, general behavior, etc.,

- the physical environment: weather, air traffic, photographs, radar data, traces left on
the environment, etc.,

- 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
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
of traces left on the environment may result in specialized laboratories 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
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.

7.2 First Classification of UAPs (Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena)

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,

- 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,

- 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
sightings of phenomena, some of which were close to the ground, within a few meters of
the witnesses. The strangest and most mysterious cases in this category are generally
labeled CE3s (close encounters of the third kind) according to the classification proposed

by Professor A. Hynek, an astronomer and consultant to the USAF, within the context of
the Blue Book Project (cf. Chapter 9.1).

7.3 Typology of UAP Ds

The detailed statistical analysis of UAP Ds enables a precise determination of the
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,
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.

7.4 Investigations of Remarkable Cases

Around one hundred investigations have been conducted by GEPAN/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
example, by taking hallucinogenic drugs. Several very in-depth investigations based on
analyses of evidence have demonstrated, in the end, the physical presence of a
phenomenon the nature and origin of which remain unknown. Two cases related in
Chapter 4 stand out in our minds, the Trans-en-Provence case of January 8, 1981, and the
“Amaranth” case of October 21, 1982. The investigations lead us to believe that double-
saucer-shaped objects were close to the ground for some time, then departed toward the
sky leaving traces on the vegetation and, in the Trans-en-Provence case, on the ground

itself. They are detailed in GEPAN technical memoranda no. 16 and no. 17 (see the
reference list in Chapter 6).

7.5 Aeronautical Cases
7.5.1 Data on French Aeronautical Cases

- 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
aircraft in the Orange area. In two other very extraordinary sightings, which are presented
in Chapter 1, military pilots reported the presence of objects with aeronautical
performances inconsistent with the maneuvers of classic aircraft over the region of Tours
in 1976 and of Luxeuil in 1977. However, not until January 28, 1994, was the crew of a
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).

7.5.2 Aeronautical UAP D Cases Worldwide

The aeronautical UAP D cases known since 1942 were initially enumerated in a
document entitled Rencontres dans le ciel [Encounters in the Sky], by Dominique
Weinstein, the French portion of which SEPRA contributed to. The list of sightings
worldwide includes the description of 489 well-documented cases of aeronautical UAP D
sightings the sources of which were duly verified. Most of the information on these
aeronautical UAP Ds is drawn from official sources, government authorities, the Air
Forces of different States, or agencies like SEPRA.

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,
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.).

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 of sightings were recorded: 68. A total of 63 countries are cited as having been
the scene of at least one aeronautical sighting.

7.5.3 “Radar/Visual” Cases Worldwide

“Radar/visual” cases are those in which a visual sighting is associated with an onboard
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,

- 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, 16 out of 68 cases were “radar/visual” cases (23.52%).

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% of which were “radar/visual” cases. They furnish proof of a physical
reality of phenomena that exhibited paradoxical maneuvers.

7.6 The Physical Reality of UAP Ds
7.6.1 An Initial Report as Early as September 1947 in the United States

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
we have highlighted, both in the aeronautical sphere (military and civilian aeronautical
cases) and close to the ground (cases of close encounters), support other cases of well-
documented sightings that have been verified by official authorities throughout the world.
It is interesting to note that as early as November [sic] 1947, right at the start of the very
first wave of modern 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
very explicit:

1. The phenomenon reported is something real, .and not visionary or fictitious

2. Disk-shaped objects the size of which is comparable to that of our aircraft do exist.

3. It is possible that some sightings correspond to natural phenomena.

4. The very high rate-of-climb observed, the maneuverability, and the escape
maneuvers when the disks are detected lead one to assume that they are piloted or
operated by remote control.
5. Most witnesses describe objects with a metal surface that are circular or elliptical
in shape, the upper portion of which is dome shaped, Slying without making any
noise in a formation of three to nine objects...

7.6.2 GEPAN/SEPRA’s Work

We do not have irrefutable tangible proof in the form 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 GEPAN/SEPRA for
over 20 years confirms the statements General Twining made in 1947. :

7.6.3 French Aeronautical Cases

The study of French military aeronautical UAP D [sightings] (Orange in 1951, Tours in
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”
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.

7.6.4 Cases of Close-Up UAP D Sightings in France

For their part, the cases of close-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
with a metallic appearance and circular shape landed, then took off silently within a very
short space of time not very far from a wall 2.5 m in height. No modern aircraft is capable
of these silent maneuvers, nor of this degree of precision when landing. It is hard not to
imagine a piloted or remote-controlled flying machine, or else one having highly advanced
cybernetics.

The other French cases of close encounters described in Chapter 4 also strongly
suggest the existence of an intelligent [civilization] behind the UAP Ds. In the Valensole,
“Amaranth” and Cussac cases, once the witness or witnesses are brought face to face with
the UAP D, everything generally happens very quickly, and the object escapes without
having shown the slightest aggressiveness toward the witnesses

7.6.5 Foreign Cases - Conclusion

The study of certain foreign cases leads to conclusions similar to those drawn from the
French cases. One may reread in this spirit the description of the aeronautical cases
presented in Chapter 2. We could also relate foreign cases of close encounters, such as
the Socorro (New Mexico) case, which is similar to the Trans-en-Provence case, but the
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 performances that are guided by a
natural or artificial intelligence.

Chapter 8 - UFOs: Hypotheses, Modeling Attempts

8.1 Partial Models

Credible sightings of aerial 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:

- aerial movements carried out silently with very rapid accelerations and/or very high
speeds,

- the shutting off of 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
of aerial movements, sightings which are, moreover, supported by radar plots, that should
be explained first.

8.1.1 Travel

There are, from the standpoint of the concept, various principles of propulsion that do
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.

8.1.1.1 MHD Propulsion

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
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
create the necessary field and current:

- for the magnetic field, this is easily accomplished by installing w

[…truncated…]