GEPO No 30-31 - OVNI & Cie - GEPO Informations - No 30-31 - 2eme et 3eme trim 1983

Magazine Overview

This document is the final issue, number 31, of the French ufology magazine "GEPO INFORMATIONS et compagnie" (formerly "SIECLE INCONNU" and "OVNI & COMPAGNIE"), covering July-August-September 1983. The magazine's history dates back to November 3, 1975, when it started as a small publication for a club of young students.

Editorial and Content

The editorial team expresses that the publication's production has become too time-consuming, leading to its cessation. They wish readers a good final read, apologizing for any typographical errors. The issue includes an interview with Jean-Claude Bourret, a detailed analysis of a specific UFO sighting case, and a comprehensive list of other ufological publications received by GEPO.

Interview with Jean-Claude Bourret

In an interview conducted on December 17, 1982, Jean-Claude Bourret discusses his involvement in ufology. He recounts a past radio hoax he participated in, which involved a staged UFO crash report. Bourret states that he has stopped writing books on UFOs to avoid being labeled a "merchant of ufology" and because he feels the field is repetitive. He acknowledges having connections with independent French and foreign ufology groups, primarily by receiving their bulletins and giving conferences to support them financially. However, he has intellectually distanced himself, finding many in the field to be "pedestrian," "jealous," and dogmatic. He receives technical notes from GEPAN but has no direct relationship with them. Regarding the Cergy-Pontoise case, he confirms it was a hoax orchestrated by pranksters, and he refused to lend his credibility to it.

Bourret believes that while he doesn't centralize all testimonials, his public image as a ufologist might help him collect more information than others. He is aware of the creation of the French Federation of Ufology but is not interested, questioning the competence and number of people involved. He criticizes the French tendency to associate any financial dealings with dishonesty and the lack of funding for scientific research in ufology, which he believes leads to groups failing quickly. He dismisses Steven Spielberg's film "E.T." as "completely idiotic" and a "Christmas tale for morons," stating it has no scientific basis regarding the extra-terrestrial hypothesis. He suggests that while the UFO phenomenon and the extra-terrestrial hypothesis are not necessarily linked, it is difficult to avoid considering the latter given the current state of intellectual investigation. He emphasizes that science progresses by proposing hypotheses and then verifying them experimentally.

Case Study: Chantilly Sighting (December 14, 1981)

The magazine presents a detailed analysis of a sighting that occurred on December 14, 1981, near Chantilly, France. Witnesses Mr. X (34), Mrs. Y (30, wife of X), and their child observed a luminous point in the sky that was larger than a star but lacked its shape, appearing round and slightly flat. Mr. X initially thought it was an airplane, but its lack of movement ruled this out. The object remained stationary for several minutes before appearing to blink or extinguish and reappear. The witnesses described it as being lower than Venus and lacking the typical halo seen around stars. Mr. X, who wears glasses, and Mrs. Y, who is interested in ufology, both observed the phenomenon. The analysis suggests that the object's behavior, including its apparent movement and disappearance, could be explained by Venus's position and the time of observation (around 19:30-19:45 GMT). The authors calculated Venus's position for that date and time, noting its magnitude and diameter, and concluded that it was visible in the sky at the location and orientation described by the witnesses. They suggest that the phenomenon might have been Venus being obscured by natural elements or atmospheric variations, or a misinterpretation of Venus's appearance.

Other Content

The issue also includes a section titled "LA PRESSE UFOLOGIQUE" (Ufological Press), which lists numerous ufological journals, bulletins, and newsletters received by GEPO from various organizations in France and abroad, such as "LES CHRONIQUES" (CLEU), "UFO 21" (Belgium), "INFORESPACE," "UFOLOGIA," "NORTHERN UFO NEWS," "THE PROBE REPORT," and "ALPHA." These entries provide publication details, addresses, and brief descriptions of their content.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently focuses on UFO phenomena, investigations, and the dissemination of information within the ufological community. The editorial stance, particularly evident in the interview with Bourret and the analysis of the Chantilly case, leans towards critical examination and a scientific approach, questioning sensationalism and promoting rational explanations, including astronomical misidentifications. The final issue reflects a dedication to ufological research while acknowledging the personal costs involved in producing such a publication.

This issue of 'HENRI CHALOUPEK: 35 ANS D'UFOLOGIE' (13th volume, issue 29, dated March 18, 1983) is primarily dedicated to an in-depth interview with Henri Chaloupek, a significant figure in French ufology. The magazine also features correspondence and discussions related to ufological investigations and publications.

Interview with Henri Chaloupek

Early Interest and First Encounters

Henri Chaloupek explains that his interest in ufology stemmed from a passion for science fiction and an article he read in 1947 about the famous Arnold case. This sparked his habit of collecting press clippings. He recounts a personal sighting in 1952 while at home in Issy, France, where he and his wife observed two luminous points in the sky that remained stationary before ascending and disappearing. He notes that at this time, UFOs were not widely discussed.

Involvement with Ufological Publications and Groups

Chaloupek's involvement deepened in 1955 when he discovered 'Courrier Interplanétaire,' a publication he found to be serious amidst others he considered 'caricatures and idiotic.' He contacted its responsible person, A. Nehan, and became involved in organizing meetings and contributing to the journal. He mentions meeting other ufologists like F. Couten, A. Michel, Weber, Tournier, Bossard, and Gu, describing the early meetings as having a 'spiritual' ambiance, with a scarcity of scientific professionals.

He also discusses his encounter with Nahon in September 1956 and his interactions with Jimmy Guieu, who was writing about 'Ouranos' while Chaloupek was involved with 'Courrier Interplanétaire.' He laments the difficulty in obtaining old ufological reviews today, admitting he regrets lending or giving away rare publications.

In 1957, he mentions a Brazilian of French origin, 'Swani Sevananda,' who, influenced by Hinduism, organized observation vigils by leveling a hill.

The Evolution of Ufology and Group Dynamics

Chaloupek details his participation in regular Parisian meetings from 1950 to 1964, which varied in location. He was also part of 'Ouranos' through Guieu, whom he describes as a 'chief investigator' but whose methods were somewhat fantastical. He notes the changes and difficulties within 'Ouranos,' including its eventual revival by Delval after Thirouin's death.

Around 1962, after years of Parisian meetings, he observed a decline in activity and sales of 'Courrier.' This led to the creation of a research organization to interest scientists. This initiative resulted in the formation of CEPA (Comité d'Étude des Phénomènes Aériens) and its review, 'Phénomènes Spatiaux,' in October 1962. He highlights the challenge of keeping track of different publications due to variations in paper, format, and numbering.

He explains that the 'Amis du Courrier Interplanétaire' group ceased to meet, and CEPA meetings began. The GEPA saw a surge in attendance, particularly from the mid-1960s, with many young people joining. He credits Colonel Chassin as the responsible figure, finding him more accessible than René Foueré, who was described as having a 'somewhat muscular spirit.' He clarifies that René Hardy was the true creator, with René Foueré serving as secretary.

Chaloupek's role in GEPA involved translating Czech and Polish documents, as information traveled easily at that time. However, by 1969-70, this flow stopped due to a crisis. He also conducted some investigations, primarily for 'Courrier Interplanétaire,' and wrote articles for LDLN.

International Contacts and the 'Sonder Buro Nr 13' Case

Around 1959-60, Chaloupek interacted with a Russian named Liapounov and later with Peterssen from Denmark, who provided regular updates on the ufological situation in his country. He mentions that Peterssen was a convinced Adamski follower and an aviator.

He discusses his involvement with the 'Sonder Buro Nr 13' case, a subject of investigation by the GEPA. He clarifies that he did not specialize in 'V7' but received documentation from a friend in Prague. He published UFO information from Eastern European countries in 'Phénomènes Spatiaux' until 1977. When GEPA ceased publication, he proposed his information to 'Lumières dans la Nuit,' which rejected it. He recounts an incident where he received a check for 200 francs from Moutet for articles and photographs, which he found surprising.

He notes the loss of unique documents and photographs due to the cessation of these publications. Chaloupek also wrote an article for the GEPA review concerning I. Kobana's book 'Les OVNI en JASS,' acknowledging that he provided information on Polish and Czechoslovakian UFO phenomena, though sources were imperfectly cited.

Evolution of French Ufology

Chaloupek observes that between 1965 and 1975, numerous UFO groups and magazines emerged in France, most of which have since disappeared. He reflects on the evolution of ufology, stating that the core facts and types of sightings remain similar, though presented differently. He believes that the field has not fundamentally changed, with phenomena still eluding easy explanation and potentially involving concepts like hyperspace or parallel dimensions.

Skepticism and Historical Cases

Regarding the current wave of skepticism, Chaloupek emphasizes the need for conscientious research and perseverance. He acknowledges that while current investigations are more thorough than in the past, the fundamental nature of the phenomena remains elusive. He suggests that historical cases also present intriguing anomalies and that the universe's simplicity might be a matter of vibrations.

He comments on the evolving viewpoints of fellow ufologists like P. Lagarde, F. Couten, G. Cornu, and G. Guieu, noting that some, like Jimmy Guieu, have evolved their perspectives, while others, like Prévost, have been influenced by specific individuals. He also mentions that some, like Michel, have chosen to avoid deeper research at certain levels due to potential dangers.

Correspondence: Durrant vs. Pinvidic on 'Sonder Buro Nr 13'

The issue includes a significant exchange between Henry Durrant and Thierry Pinvidic concerning the 'Sonder Buro Nr 13' case. Durrant, in a letter dated March 18, 1983, congratulates the GEPA's investigation but points out several facts. He states he did not receive certain publications ('Ufologie contact n°8,' 'UFO Informations N°34') and was unaware of the case until reading the GEPA's report. He addresses comments made about him, considering the matter closed. Durrant questions the GEPA's approach to 'copycat' phenomena and criticizes the lack of equal scrutiny for all cases. He also expresses curiosity about the GEPA's interest in an organism that allegedly never existed.

Pinvidic, in his response, accuses Durrant of fabricating the 'Sonder Buro Nr 13' case and calls it a 'supercherie' (hoax). He claims Durrant deliberately misled him for several months in 1977 when Pinvidic was investigating UFOs in Germany. Pinvidic asserts that Durrant's actions were an abuse of trust and that Durrant's subsequent publication of the case as a 'scoop' was an attempt to gain notoriety. Pinvidic questions the reliability of Durrant's future accounts, citing this incident as evidence of his untrustworthiness. He also criticizes Durrant and others for mocking fellow researchers who have not verified their sources.

Press Review

The issue concludes with a section listing various ufological publications and their contact information, including AFU Newsletter, CSEAP Journal, CENAP Report, OVNI Presence, UFOLOGIE, UFO INFORMATIONS, and UFO FLASH.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the history and evolution of ufology, personal experiences, the challenges of investigation, the dynamics within ufological groups, and the critical examination of specific cases. There is a clear emphasis on rigorous research and a questioning of alleged hoaxes or misrepresentations within the field, as exemplified by the Durrant-Pinvidic exchange. The editorial stance appears to favor detailed, evidence-based investigation while acknowledging the persistent mysteries and evolving theoretical frameworks within ufology.

This document is issue number 3 of 'QUNI ET COMPAGNIE GEPO INFORMATIONS', covering the period of April, May, and June. The cover features an intricate line drawing with symbolic elements and the publication's title. The content appears to be primarily correspondence and research-related documents concerning historical events, particularly those related to German rocketry and potential UFO sightings during and after World War II.

Key Articles and Correspondence

Letter from Hermann Oberth to Thierry Vinvedic (October 18, 1976)

This letter, dated October 18, 1976, is a response from Hermann Oberth to Thierry Vinvedic regarding a series of questions posed by Vinvedic, likely related to historical research concerning the 'cercle des historiens et d'anciens de Peenemünde' (circle of historians and former members of Peenemünde). Oberth states that all inquiries within the 'Interessengemeinschaft der ehemaligen Peenemünder' (Interest Group of Former Peenemünde Personnel) yielded negative results, meaning no one could confirm Vinvedic's assumptions. He further clarifies that information regarding Allied activities was unknown to them. Oberth also notes that by 1944, Peenemünde was no longer located in Kummersdorf, and therefore, information about '200 men who were with Göbbels in Kummersdorf' is also unknown to them. Oberth expresses regret for not being able to provide more helpful information and signs off with a formal closing.

Letter from the 'INTERESSENGEMEINSCHAFT DER EHEMALIGEN PEENEMÜNDER' (July 20, 1977)

This letter, dated July 20, 1977, and signed by Heinz Grote, is addressed to Thierry Vinvedic. It reiterates the findings from their inquiries, stating that all investigations within the community resulted in negative outcomes and that no one could confirm Vinvedic's assumptions. Similar to Oberth's letter, it mentions that information about Allied activities is unknown to them and that Peenemünde was not in Kummersdorf in 1944. Consequently, they have no knowledge of the '200 men' allegedly present with Göbbels in Kummersdorf. The organization expresses regret for not being able to provide better information and maintains a formal tone.

Translated Letter from M. Sallah to Thierry Vinvedic (July 20, 1977)

This document is a translation of a letter from M. Sallah to Thierry Vinvedic, also dated July 20, 1977. The letter acknowledges Vinvedic's previous correspondence from November 1976 and expresses the extreme difficulty in answering his questions. Sallah states that it is 'almost certain' that his questions are 'unanswerable' and that they are 'in a fog.' He requests that Vinvedic provide more details, specifically asking for clarification on certain points, including the nature of the 'air' and the 'program.' The letter mentions that they are searching for documents and that they will try to provide more information once clearer details are received. It also references 'Riedel' and expresses a desire to help, despite the challenges.

Other Documents and Notes

Several other fragmented documents and notes are present. One section appears to be a list of questions or points for discussion, possibly related to the research topics. Another document, dated September 21, 1976, seems to be a receipt or confirmation of some sort. There are also bank details for the 'INTERESSENGEMEINSCHAFT DER EHEMALIGEN PEENEMÜNDER,' including account numbers for Volksbank and Postgiroamt Frankfurt/Main.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around historical investigation into classified German wartime technologies, particularly rocketry, and the search for evidence or information related to UFO phenomena. The editorial stance, as conveyed through the correspondence, is one of diligent but often frustrated research. The contributors are attempting to piece together historical events and technological developments, but frequently encounter gaps in information, lack of corroborating evidence, and the passage of time obscuring facts. There is a clear effort to be thorough and to respond to specific research queries, even when the answers are negative or inconclusive. The focus on former personnel of Peenemünde suggests an interest in the legacy of German aerospace and defense research and its potential connections to unexplained phenomena.