Groupe 5255 - No 04 - 1982

Magazine Overview

This issue, number 4, of the publication by GROUPE 5255, a study and research group for UFOs (OVNI) in the Haute-Marne and Meuse regions of France, covers observations made in January and February 1975. The cover prominently features the group's name and the region of focus, with a detailed illustration of a landscape suggesting a UFO sighting. The issue includes a chronological log of events, meteorological and aeronautical data, and organizational information for the group.

Editorial: Publier...

The editorial, written by Christine Zwygart, emphasizes the importance of publishing information in ufology, citing Jacques Vallée's advice to "Publier." It argues that hoarding information for years in search of a definitive "truth" is counterproductive and that accessible information is crucial for research. The group's aim is to make their revue a working document, primarily focusing on observations and investigations within their region (Haute-Marne/Meuse). They commit to providing complete and rigorous dossiers, useful to other researchers. The publication will not adhere to a fixed schedule due to the nature of the work. Three conditions are set for the use of information: sources must be cited, it must not be used for commercial gain, and it must be respected and not distorted.

Observations at Lac du Der-Chantecoq (Haute-Marne) - January-February 1975 (Continued)

This section details specific UFO events that occurred at Lac du Der-Chantecoq. The report notes that these events are comparable to others, such as those at Ferme de l'Aveyron and photos from Uzès, suggesting that ufologist testimonies can be as valuable as those from non-ufologists.

Chronology of Events:

• Saturday, January 25, 1975:
• 19:30 HL: Ballet of spheres (5 witnesses).
• Saturday, February 1, 1975:
• 19:05 HL: Second ballet of spheres (5 witnesses).
• 22:45 HL: Sphere on a path (3 witnesses).
• Sunday, February 2, 1975:
• 08:30 HL: Humanoid shape (3 witnesses).
• 19:00 HL: "Experience" with spheres (4 witnesses).
• 20:15 HL: Second appearance of the humanoid shape (4 witnesses).
• 23:00 HL: Sphere on the water with a dark tube (4 witnesses, 2 with close-up views).
• Monday, February 3, 1975:
• 20:45 HL: Evolutions of spheres on the ground - infrared photos (6 witnesses).
• 21:15 HL: Third appearance of the humanoid shape (6 witnesses).
• 21:40 HL: Luminous tube - photo (no result) (2 witnesses).
• 23:30 HL: Sphere in the sky - photo (6 witnesses).
• Tuesday, February 4, 1975:
• 18:45 HL: Sphere on the ground and footsteps (1 witness).
• 19:35 HL: Manifestations of spheres on the ground and in altitude (2 witnesses).
• 20:20 HL to 21:30 HL: Passages of 3 spheres in altitude (3 witnesses).
• Wednesday, February 5, 1975:
• 19:00 HL: Evolutions of spheres in the sky (4 witnesses).
• 22:20 HL: Spheres at low altitude (2 witnesses).

Meteorological Parameters

This section details the meteorological conditions during the observation period (January 15 to February 5, 1975). The data includes wind direction and speed, visibility, cloud cover, temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure. The report notes that most phenomena were observed at low altitudes and close to the ground, with witness-object distances ranging from 250m down to 2-3m, making confusion unlikely. Conventional explanations like marsh gas, will-o'-the-wisps, luminescent fog, or fluorescent microscopic fungi are considered improbable due to the nature of the observations. The duration, shapes, and movements of the phenomena did not correspond to natural events. Confusion with weather balloons is also ruled out, as the Saint-Dizier meteorological station does not launch balloons in the evening or at night, and regional stations have specific launch times that do not coincide with the observations. The low-altitude evolutions and duration of the phenomena further exclude the balloon hypothesis.

Aeronautical Information

Information was sought from the 7th Fighter Wing based at Saint-Dizier (BA 113), which operates Jaguars and Mirage III/IV aircraft. It was confirmed that no military aircraft belonging to this wing were active in the observation area during the specified period. The observed phenomena, particularly those at very low altitudes and on the ground, rule out misidentification with maneuvering military aircraft. While confusion with helicopters is possible, information from BA 113 and ALAT (Light Aviation of the Army) indicates that no such aircraft were maneuvering or flying in the specific sector. Furthermore, the close proximity of witnesses to the objects made confusion with any type of aircraft improbable. Military transport vehicles are also ruled out, as their noise would have been amplified at night, and the terrain only allows for foot access.

Meteorological Service Letter

A letter dated September 14, 1982, from the Metropolitan Meteorological Service at Saint-Dizier Air Base 113, addressed to Mr. Roger Thomé, provides requested meteorological parameters for specific dates and times in 1975. The letter confirms that the Saint-Dizier station does not launch balloons in the evening or at night. The cost for this information was 144.00 F.

Meteorological Data (Detailed)

This section provides detailed meteorological data for 13 specific entries, primarily from January 15 to February 5, 1975, at various times (HL - Local Hour). Each entry includes:

• Date and Time: e.g., "15 Janvier 1975 à 1800 HL"
• Wind: Direction and speed (m/s and km/h)
• Clouds: Type and altitude (e.g., "3/8 Altocumulus à 3000 m")
• Visibility: (e.g., "20 km")
• Temperature: (e.g., "13.5 °")
• Humidity: (e.g., "50%")
• Barometric Pressure: (e.g., "Pression Station 1991.7 mb")

Some entries note specific conditions like "Ciel clair" (clear sky) or "Brouillard" (fog).

Letter from 3R.H.C.

A letter dated September 12, 1982, from the Chief of CLA, 3R.H.C. (3rd Helicopter Regiment), Base d'Etain, Rouvres, addressed to Mr. Roger Thomé, President of Groupe 5255. It provides requested operating hours for the base:

• Weekdays: Opening 08:00, Closing 18:00.
• Weekends: From January 15, 1975, opening 11:00 to 19:30. From February 1, 1975, opening 10:00 to 21:00 local time.

The letter states that no BR.H.C. aircraft were involved in the requested research areas. It also confirms that on Wednesday, January 15, 1975, no BR.H.C. aircraft were in flight for the requested periods.

Letter from 1 REGIMENT D'HELICOPTERES DE COMBAT

A letter dated October 4, 1982, from the Chief of Staff of the 1st Regiment of Combat Helicopters, addressed to Monsieur Thomé. It acknowledges a request for information regarding OVNI phenomena in 1975. The regiment's archives yielded no positive results, as the ALAT unit that was present at the time has since been dissolved, and the personnel have changed. The letter states that they cannot confirm if the reported phenomena are related to their helicopters. The operating hours for the base are variable, but typically between 08:00 and 19:00, and 21:00 to 24:00, for both day and night activities. The base's runway is no longer homologated for air traffic. The regiment expresses willingness to assist within their capabilities.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the detailed reporting and investigation of UFO sightings in a specific region of France. The editorial stance strongly advocates for transparency and the sharing of information within the ufological community, viewing the publication as a tool for collective research. The group aims to provide rigorous, verifiable data, emphasizing the importance of citing sources and avoiding commercial exploitation of findings. The issue also highlights the collaborative nature of ufology, encouraging contributions from witnesses and researchers alike, and demonstrating efforts to cross-reference observations with meteorological and military data to eliminate mundane explanations.

This issue, titled 'CARTES DU CIEL VISIBLE AU MOMENT DES FAITS' (Charts of the Visible Sky at the Moment of the Facts), covers astronomical ephemerides and detailed witness accounts of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) from January and February 1975 in France. The publication aims to clarify potential astronomical misinterpretations of observed events.

Astronomical Ephemerides (January-February 1975)

The issue provides detailed planetary ephemerides for January and February 1975, outlining the visibility and positions of various planets:

• Venus: Easily observable in the evening towards the West.
• Mercury: Followed Venus closely in its diurnal movement. Its greatest elongation was on January 23, 1975.
• Jupiter: Visible in Aquarius in the evening in the South-West in January, then in the West in February. It disappeared into the twilight glow by the end of February.
• Saturn: Visible from sunset in the constellation of Gemini, shining brightly all night and culminating high in the sky.
• Mars: Presented little interest for observation in February, being slightly visible in the morning in Ophiuchus, then very low on the horizon in Sagittarius.
• Uranus: Located East of Virgo, visible during the second part of the night.
• Neptune: In Ophiuchus, magnitude 7.8. On February 15th, its position was alpha 16h41m8, delta = 20°38′32″.

Several lunar conjunctions and phases are also noted:

• February 2, 12:00 TU: Uranus in conjunction with the Moon (3°27'N).
• February 3, 06:00 TU: Last quarter of the Moon.
• February 5, 10:00 TU: Neptune in conjunction with the Moon (19°15'N).
• February 8: Mars approached the Moon (observable late at night).

The text highlights that Venus and Jupiter were the brightest celestial bodies at dusk and were in conjunction on February 17th, noting differences in their brightness and coloration. The report suggests that witnesses did indeed notice these celestial bodies during late January and early February 1975, but emphasizes that the movements, positions, and altitudes of the observed phenomena exclude confusion with planets.

Key UAP Incidents

Incident 1: Luminous Spheres at Lac du Der (February 1, 1975)

This report details an observation on Saturday, February 1, 1975, starting around 19:05 HL, involving five witnesses (Jany, Annie, and Myriam Sauvanet; René and Roger Thome) near the Lac du Der. The observation occurred in the Bois du Ham.

Initially, a white, opaline sphere with sharp contours was observed hovering a few centimeters above the ground, about 15-20 meters away, with a diameter estimated between 80 cm and 1 meter. It emitted a slight humming sound. The sphere receded as the witnesses approached, repeating this movement over several stops. Suddenly, it moved rapidly away and disappeared after a brief stationary period.

Shortly after, a second red sphere, smaller than the first, appeared from the left and moved rapidly towards the first sphere in a descending trajectory. It disappeared abruptly mid-flight. Simultaneously, the first sphere began to ascend obliquely towards the sky for about ten minutes before extinguishing.

Around 19:25 HL, a third fixed sphere, similar in size and color to the first, appeared directly in front of the witnesses. It remained stationary for about ten minutes before slowly moving left and disappearing behind the trees. During this time, two other smaller red spheres (diameter estimated at 'nº 4' on the comparator) appeared from different directions (NE-SO and NO-SE), crossed paths slowly a few centimeters away from the fixed sphere, and then disappeared.

The witnesses, intrigued but cautious, did not attempt any light contact or take photos. They returned later with a 16mm camera around 22:45 HL.

Incident 2: Humanoid Form at Lac du Der (February 2, 1975)

On Sunday, February 2, 1975, around 00:30 HL, the same witnesses (Jany, Annie, Myriam Sauvanet, René and Roger Thome) returned to the same location. They observed a white, luminous, somewhat blurry 'rectangle' shape.

Upon approaching to within 200-250 meters, they clearly discerned a 'humanoid form' through binoculars (10x50 and 12x50). It appeared immobile and was estimated to be over 2 meters tall. The form was described as entirely white, luminous like molten metal, and solid. No distinct facial features were visible on the 'head,' which was a perfectly round mass. No arms or legs were discernible as the lower part was obscured by undergrowth. Its movements were described as synchronized, like an automaton.

Approximately one minute after the humanoid's appearance, a luminous dome of the same color lit up behind it. A powerful yellow-pale light beam (Pantone 100 U) then emanated from behind the phenomenon, directed vertically towards the sky, illuminating the tops of nearby trees. The humanoid form then began to move, 'swaying' slightly from left to right and 'gliding' slowly towards the trees in the Bois du Ham, accompanied by the dome and the light beam, which illuminated the area like a DCA projector.

Suddenly, the entire phenomenon extinguished. The witnesses attempted to get a better vantage point but were hindered by dense undergrowth, branches, and thickets. They avoided using their torches, fearing it might scare the phenomenon away. They found nothing and saw nothing further. The observation ended around 02:00 HL.

A complementary note indicates that both the sphere observed on the path and the 'humanoid form' were situated at an azimuth of 250° West-South-West.

Subsequent Observation (February 3, 1975)

On Sunday evening, the witnesses returned to the same location. Jany, René, the narrator, and Régis (Jany's 17-year-old brother) were present. They arrived around 19:00 HL on the path bordering the Bois du Ham, where the sphere had been seen the previous day, preceding the 'humanoid form' observation.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the investigation of UAP sightings and the attempt to distinguish them from astronomical phenomena. The editorial stance is clearly that the observed events, particularly the luminous spheres and the humanoid form, are not misidentifications of planets or other known celestial bodies. The detailed ephemerides serve as a baseline to rule out such explanations. The magazine presents witness testimonies and observational data, emphasizing the unusual characteristics and behaviors of the phenomena, suggesting a serious and unexplained aspect to these sightings. The use of technical terms like 'azimuth,' 'altitude,' 'magnitude,' and specific planetary data underscores a scientific approach to documenting these events.

This document details a series of unusual sightings that occurred in Bois de Ham, on the edge of the Ancien Der reservoir in Haute-Marne, France, on February 1st and 2nd, 1975. The primary focus is on the displacement of a "humanoid" form observed by multiple witnesses.

Bois de Ham Sighting (February 1-2, 1975)

First Encounter (February 1-2, 1975, Evening)

The initial report describes a humanoid form observed in the Bois de Ham. Witnesses described it as over 2 meters tall, immobile, and situated about 250 meters away. A drawing depicts its aspect, and another shows a slight sway noted by witnesses. A comparison is made to a target silhouette used by the French Army. The form was also observed through 12x50 Asahi Pentax binoculars, described as very luminous.

Second Encounter (February 2, 1975, 23:10 HL)

This section provides a more detailed account of events on the night of February 2nd. The witnesses, identified as René, Jany, Annie, Myriam, and the authors (Roger and Jany), returned to the area. They first observed a red ball in the sky, which then extinguished. Subsequently, two white balls appeared on the ground, in the same location where the "humanoid form" had been previously seen. These white balls were described as cold, white, and silent, about 1 meter in diameter, and positioned about 1.50 meters above the ground. They moved in a coordinated manner, sometimes detaching and moving independently, then returning to their original positions. This behavior led the witnesses to believe they were observing an "intelligent" phenomenon.

Sphere Evolution and Disappearance

The two white spheres began to move away, separating and disappearing into the woods. The observation lasted about half an hour. The witnesses felt they had been part of a "game." Later, three powerful luminous beams appeared vertically in the area where the humanoid had been seen the previous night. The "humanoid form" then reappeared, moving and disappearing into the woods again. This entire observation lasted only 1 to 1.5 minutes.

Further Observations and Infrared Photography

Following the disappearance, the group decided to explore the area. They noted an unusual silence in the environment. Later that night, at 23:00 HL, the two groups reconvened. René and Régis reported seeing a white, round, and pale light approaching them on the water. They initially thought it was Roger and Jany with a weak flashlight. However, the light moved parallel to the water without the sound of splashing and did not have the characteristic sway of a handheld light. They then observed a sphere of cold, white, slightly iridescent light, about 1 meter in diameter, hovering 10 cm above the water. It was accompanied by a black cylindrical tube, about 3.30 meters high. A powerful yellow beam then swept the area. This phenomenon lasted about 1 minute before disappearing rapidly across the water.

Meanwhile, Roger and Jany observed a powerful yellow beam sweeping the area where René and Régis were. They then heard their friends calling and the beam extinguished. They eventually met up with René and Régis, who were visibly pale.

Infrared Photography

After the disappearance of the right sphere, the group decided to take photos. Régis used a Canon FT QL camera with a 135mm telephoto lens and infrared film. They took 5 shots. Shortly after, the sphere extinguished.

Third Appearance of the "Humanoid Form"

Following the disappearance of the spheres, a yellow beam of light appeared from the woods, and the "humanoid form" reappeared, stationary. René and Jany decided to go into the woods to try and flank the phenomenon, while the others remained to observe. Régis handed his camera, equipped with infrared film, to Jany.

Comparative Cases

The document includes several other similar cases from France:

• Saint-du-Gard (GARD), August 9, 1972: A young teacher camping with her husband observed a black humanoid silhouette, 1.20 meters tall, with an ovoid head and white circles for eyes. It had no arms or legs and was described as motionless.
• Riec-sur-Belon (FINISTERE), September 29, 1974: The Le Bihan family observed three luminous figures, appearing like humans with electric arc-colored heads. They were about 1.70 meters tall, stout, moved slowly and heavily with a slight sway, and their movements were synchronized. No facial features or limbs were noted.
• Puy de Chanturge (AUVERGNE), October 1969: Madame B. observed a majestic, monolithic silhouette, about 2.60 meters tall, black and uniform, touching the ground and remaining motionless.

Supplementary Measures and Observations (February 3, 1975)

On the morning of February 3rd, the witnesses returned to the site to search for a lost camera and viewfinder. They also took measurements, finding that the phenomenon observed over the water had been about 4 meters away, with an azimuth of 200º Southwest.

In the evening, six people returned: René, Jany, Régis, the authors, Alain Coquie (a police inspector trainee), and Christian Asche (a laboratory assistant). They observed a red ball in the sky, which then extinguished. Two white balls appeared on the ground, similar to previous sightings. They were about 3 meters apart and at the same height, about 1 meter above the ground.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this document are the observation of humanoid figures and luminous spheres, often at night, in rural or wooded areas. The phenomena are frequently described as intelligent, exhibiting coordinated movements and behaviors that suggest a deliberate interaction with the witnesses. The use of comparative cases from different regions and dates suggests a pattern of similar events. The editorial stance appears to be one of serious reporting and investigation, presenting witness testimonies and attempting to gather factual data, including measurements and photographic evidence (though the photos themselves are not included in this document). The witnesses' initial skepticism is overcome by the strangeness and consistency of the events, leading them to believe they are dealing with something beyond conventional explanations.

This document, likely an issue of "L.D.L.N." from December 1975 (Issue N° 150), details multiple Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) sightings that occurred on Monday, February 3, 1975, primarily in the region of Bois de Ham and Champauvert, France. The report includes witness testimonies, descriptions of the phenomena, and photographic evidence, including infrared images.

Sighting on February 3, 1975, Bois de Ham

The main event described took place on Monday, February 3, 1975, around 20:45 HL in the Bois de Ham, near the old Der. Six witnesses were present. Initially, they observed a static red ball at a low altitude. The report notes the evolution of two white balls on the ground, which were approached. Régis Sauvanet took infrared photographs of the phenomenon, which was estimated to be about 1.15 meters in diameter and located approximately 250 meters from the witnesses. The text describes the extinction of the left light and the subsequent photographic efforts.

Later, the two white balls on the ground disappeared definitively into the undergrowth while moving away from the witnesses. The report includes diagrams illustrating the positions of the witnesses and the observed phenomena.

The Luminous Tube

Another account from René and Jany describes their encounter with a luminous tube in a small clearing at approximately 21:40 HL. They perceived a vertical, elongated, cold white light that did not illuminate the surroundings. The object appeared to be about ten centimeters above the ground and was rotating slowly counter-clockwise. Its dimensions were compared to a black tube observed the previous day over water. Jany took a photo with a CANON camera, but the photo did not capture anything significant. The object accelerated its rotation and moved away rapidly, disappearing over a lake within seconds. The observation lasted about five minutes. Jany also took infrared photos of the location.

Sighting on February 3, 1975, near Champauvert

Later that evening, around 23:30 HL, three witnesses (Jany, René, and the author) decided to return to the area. They separated, with Jany remaining in the woods and René and the author posting themselves on a dike. Jany reported seeing a white, opaline ball emerge from the bushes and approach him, stopping about 4-5 meters away. He described it as material and silent. He took a photo, but the result was negative. He then heard heavy footsteps behind him that did not sound human, leading him to hypothesize a 'sonic projection'.

Meanwhile, René and the author observed a red ball in the sky, pulsing regularly, which they estimated to be 2-3 mm through binoculars. This ball initiated a slow, oblique descent from left to right, with frequent stops, before disappearing behind trees. The observation lasted 20 minutes. René Thomé photographed this phenomenon with a CANON FTb camera using a 300mm telephoto lens on a tripod, with a 20-second exposure.

Further Observations near Champauvert

At 19:35 HL, while returning to their vehicles, the witnesses observed an opaline white ball, about 3 mm in size through binoculars, evolving between the church of Champauvert and a cypress grove. The ball moved rectilinearly at about 2 meters above the ground, with irregular stops. The observation lasted 5-8 minutes.

Around 20:20 HL, René and the author observed a red ball coming from the North-North-West, moving rectilinearly at a speed comparable to a small airplane. It passed over the dike and disappeared in the direction of the South-South-East. Jany also observed this ball.

At 21:22 HL, a second white ball appeared, similar in characteristics to the first, moving from the same direction. It passed between the church and the witnesses' position. During its trajectory, it emitted a constant, dazzling white spot for 6-8 seconds before extinguishing and disappearing.

At 21:30 HL, a third sighting involved a white ball with a red tail, exhibiting characteristics similar to the previous ones but with a different trajectory from South-South-East to North-North-West. It passed behind them and disappeared abruptly in mid-air.

Photographic Results and Effects

Of the five photos taken of the ball on the path, four were reportedly impressed, but the film became progressively darker, with the last 14 photos being completely black. The luminous tube in the clearing was not impressed. The report notes a comparison with a 'ball' photographed during the landing at Uzès on November 19, 1974.

Regarding secondary effects, the report states that apart from the interference with walkie-talkies, there were no other secondary effects on the witnesses, their watches, or their equipment. No traces were found on the ground, nor was any particular odor detected.

Comparisons

The ball photographed on the path is compared to one seen at Uzès. The 'humanoid form' is likened to one observed by a schoolteacher in St-Jean-du Gard on August 9, 1972.

Sky Aspect on February 3, 1975

The document includes an illustration of the sky on the night of February 3, 1975, and diagrams explaining how stars appear to emerge or disappear behind the horizon at an oblique angle of approximately 45 degrees, which is relevant to interpreting the observed object's movements.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this document are detailed UAP sightings, witness testimonies, photographic documentation (including infrared), and the analysis of object behavior and characteristics. The editorial stance appears to be one of serious investigation and reporting of these phenomena, with a focus on factual accounts and attempts at objective analysis, while also acknowledging the unusual and sometimes frightening nature of the experiences for the witnesses.

This document, titled "HISTOIRE ET LEGENDES DU DER," appears to be an excerpt from a larger publication, likely a dictionary or historical compilation, published by Editions F.E.R.N. in 1967. The specific content focuses on UFO/UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) sightings and related historical and legendary accounts concerning the Der region of France, with a significant emphasis on events from February 1975.

Main Event: Champaubert Sightings (February 4, 1975)

The core of the report details a series of observations on the evening of Tuesday, February 4, 1975, around 18:45 HL (Heure Locale) near the Champaubert Reservoir (Ancien Der). Four witnesses—René, Jany, Régis, and Roger—were involved.

Initial Observation (19:00-19:10 HL)

The witnesses were in the Bois de Ham, bordering the ancient Der. They initially observed three stationary, luminous red spheres, described as having a size of '5' on the L.D.L.N. comparator. These spheres exhibited slow pulsations and were located about 300 meters away at a low altitude. Two spheres were close together, one slightly lower and to the right of the other, at an altitude of 20-30 meters. A third sphere, identical in appearance and lower, was estimated to be 15 meters high.

After about 12-15 seconds, the triangular formation broke. The lowest sphere ascended obliquely to the right, rejoining the other two. The second sphere moved to be beside the first. The three then aligned horizontally at an altitude of about thirty meters and remained stationary for about ten seconds, still pulsating.

Subsequently, the rightmost sphere descended obliquely, stopping at tree height, with its pulsations intensifying. As it descended, the other two spheres moved leftward at a walking pace and disappeared behind the trees. The third sphere then ascended obliquely to the left at an accelerating speed, disappearing similarly.

The observation took place in complete silence. Through binoculars, the spheres appeared perfectly spherical, and their pulsations were clearly visible.

Later Observation (20:20-21:30 HL)

Later that evening, between 20:20 and 21:30 HL, luminous "balls" were observed passing over the area. The map on page 6 indicates the location of witnesses near the Eglise de Champaubert and the position of the phenomena.

Second Incident (Around 22:00 HL)

Following the initial observation, the witnesses reconvened at the dike between Champaubert church and the Ham point. The group split: René and Régis stayed on the dike, while Jany and Roger went towards the church, maintaining contact via walkie-talkie. Around 22:20 HL, René and Régis reported seeing two spheres appear suddenly above the church, moving horizontally to the left before disappearing instantaneously. Jany and Roger, who were near the church, did not see these spheres, believing it to be a prank until René and Régis confirmed their disappearance.

René and Régis described the two spheres as enormous, orange (Pantons 164 U), and spaced a few meters apart. Their contours were sharp, and they did not illuminate the surroundings. Their size was estimated at '15' on the L.D.L.N. comparator. They moved slowly to the left, maintaining their altitude and distance, before disappearing.

Attempts to photograph the phenomena with a Reflex 24x36 camera were hampered by strong winds and the difficulty of focusing.

Other Cases in the Der Region and Surroundings

The document also compiles several other UAP reports from the Der area and its environs, spanning from 1954 to 1975:

• September/October 1954 (Braucourt): A luminous sphere changed color from white to red, descended, and then extinguished after 15 minutes.
• November 1972/January 1973 (RN 384): A reddish, toupie-shaped mass was observed in a field, accompanied by abnormal silence.
• Undated (Lac du Der): Three witnesses encountered two balls on a forest path, which then disappeared, followed by a rectangular object ascending into the sky.
• August (first half) (Eclaron): Six red balls followed each other in a straight line, observed during a storm. Meteorological data excluded ball lightning.
• July 23, 1975 (Montier-en-Der): A fixed, red pulsating ball accelerated to supersonic speed and disappeared.
• August 20, 1975 (Louze and Montier-en-Der): A red-orange disc with a black dome was observed during rain, descending vertically, moving horizontally, and disappearing.
• March 19, 1975 (Champaubert cemetery): A static object was observed above the cemetery, and a color slide was taken before its disappearance.
• October 27, 1975 (La Brêche, Lac du Der): A stationary, cigar-shaped object with illuminated parts was observed, disappearing over the horizon.

Historical and Legendary Context of the Der

The document includes an excerpt from "HAUTE-MARNE ANCIENNE ET MODERNE - DICTIONNAIRE" by Emile Jolibois, detailing the history and legends of the Der forest. This forest, one of the most considerable in the department, was historically significant. It is noted that the area was once covered by water and later became a vast marshland before transforming into a large forest. The name 'DER' is derived from the Celtic word for oak, reflecting the dominance of this tree. Legends suggest that Druids held ceremonies under the ancient oaks in the Der. The text also recounts the founding of the Abbaye de Montierender by Abbé Berchaire, who established a monastery in a place previously considered formidable and inhabited by malfactors.

Infrared Photography Analysis

An infrared film was sent by Jany to Michel Monnerie, head of RESUFO at L.D.L.N. The film showed a white sphere with black parts, but the rest of the film was completely black. Three hypotheses were proposed to explain this deterioration:

1. Heat Emission: The blackness could be due to heat emitted by an electrical device with a heating element (e.g., a water heater, electric radiator, dryer).
2. Improper Handling: The film might have been handled near a non-actinic laboratory lamp or exposed to inadequate light during development, causing it to deteriorate.
3. X-ray Exposure: Rays from the phenomenon (the sphere or luminous tube) might have passed through the camera and struck the infrared film, causing the deterioration. This hypothesis is considered plausible given the proximity of the witnesses to the phenomenon.

Conclusion of the Investigation

After these observations, the witnesses conducted further surveillance for several nights without results. They decided to change their surveillance hours, including night watches, but the phenomenon seemed to have permanently deserted the site. Subsequent experiments with cars did not replicate the observed phenomena, ruling out automobile headlights.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The document presents a detailed, eyewitness-based account of UAP sightings, emphasizing the observational details and the witnesses' experiences. It combines contemporary reports with historical and legendary context, suggesting a long-standing presence of unusual phenomena in the region. The inclusion of scientific analysis, such as the infrared photography investigation, indicates an effort to approach the subject with a degree of rigor, while acknowledging the difficulties and uncertainties involved. The overall tone is factual and investigative, presenting the accounts as credible observations, even when facing challenges in documentation and explanation. The historical section adds a layer of mystique and continuity to the unexplained events.

This issue of 'OVNI ?' (UFO ?) focuses on a series of unexplained aerial phenomena observed at Lac du Der, France, in February 1975. The magazine presents detailed witness testimonies, photographic evidence, and an in-depth analysis of the events, exploring various hypotheses and the challenges of ufological investigation.

The Lac du Der Observations

The primary focus is on a specific event that occurred on Saturday, February 1, 1975, around 10:45 PM, at the former DER (Domaine d'Expansion de la Rivière) area of Lac du Der. Three witnesses observed a luminous ball evolving along a path. The magazine includes several photographs related to the observation sites, including images labeled 'LAC du DER. Chantecoq, Partie de l'ancien DER, Février 1975. Les lieux des Observations.' Other images depict the 'Equipe sur le terrain' (Team in the field) and '2 témoins d'une autre équipe' (2 witnesses from another team), suggesting multiple observation points and teams.

One account describes a luminous ball evolving on a path on the evening of February 1, 1975, observed by three witnesses. Another section details observations made by two witnesses from a different team. The text suggests that the phenomena were not merely natural occurrences, noting their duration and diverse behaviors, including aspects that suggested intelligence or direction.

Hypotheses and Analysis

Page 3, titled 'HYPOTHESES', delves into the authors' reflections on the events. They emphasize that they are reporting facts observed at a specific time and place, without adding speculative stories of 'extraterrestrials' or 'contactees'. They admit that they could not rationally explain their observations but remain cautious, acknowledging their human conditioning and experiences. The authors state that their impressions can only lead to hypotheses, not certainties.

They describe the overall impression as a phenomenon with an 'intelligent' or 'directed' behavior, particularly for phenomena observed close to the ground. They propose that these events might have been part of a larger sequence, starting with high-altitude evolutions, followed by ground-level activity, and then a departure from the lake as if the 'work' was completed. The authors suggest they might have inadvertently 'disturbed' the phenomenon by their presence.

They recount an attempt to 'test' the phenomenon, which resulted in the impression of being part of a 'game' where it was unclear who was testing whom. They question how the balls, observed in the woods, seemed to wait for them and evolve according to their movements, unless they possessed an 'intelligent' or 'directed' character according to human standards.

Another hypothesis presented is that the phenomena might have been there to captivate attention and distract from something else, possibly related to a 'humanoid form'. The authors state that all hypotheses are conceivable but none are fully embraced. They draw parallels to similar events reported in France in 1966-1967, citing specific books: 'Mystérieuses Soucoupes Volantes' by F. LAGARDE and the Groupement LUMIERES DANS LA NUIT, and 'O.V.N.I., dimension autre' by Jacques LOB and Robert GIGI.

They dismiss the idea that the phenomena were caused by people playing tricks with lamps, citing the aspect of the phenomena, especially during close observations or high-altitude evolutions. The authors conclude that, as witnesses or ufologists, the series of observations remains inexplicable for the moment.

Reflections and Conclusion

Page 4, titled 'EN CONCLUSION, QUELQUES REFLEXIONS', reflects on the nearly eight-year delay before witnesses dedicated a report to the phenomenon for publication. The authors, who were already interested in UFOs and members of L.D.L.N., initially hesitated to discuss their observations with outsiders, believing their own experiences might not be of interest. They mention facing disbelief and irony, which led them to question their own perceptions.

With the passage of time and a change in perspective, they are certain of what they saw and maintain that the observations cannot be rationally explained. They reject the hypothesis of collective hallucination, citing the precise positions of observed objects and the presence of photographic evidence. The fact that some phenomena were observed simultaneously by two separate teams further supports their claims. They also note that when they attempted to approach the phenomena, they were sometimes close enough to 'almost touch' them, reinforcing the physical reality of the experience.

The witnesses accompanying them were described as mostly skeptical, sober, and serious, maintaining a cool and rational demeanor. While somewhat initiated into ufology, René and the author were less experienced than they are now, which might explain their delayed reactions and minimal note-taking at the time. However, they did record precise details like times, aspects, and positions, which helped them reconstruct the events.

They mention revisiting the observation sites, which were part of the 'ancien' Der and had not been overrun by tourism, remaining 'virgin' territory. The vegetation had grown, making access more difficult, but they could easily find the locations and reconstruct the observations, as they remained vividly in their memories. The authors highlight that, despite working during the day, they spent a significant part of their nights outdoors, driven by curiosity and excitement, which made them oblivious to fatigue.

The Investigator's Perspective

On page 5, the author explains that the report was written from the perspective of an external investigator, aiming for rigor and objectivity. The report would not have been published without the issue of UFO witnesses being addressed in a C.N.E.G.U. session. The author acknowledges that this is not a 'watertight case' ('cas béton') and that there might be an explanation they haven't yet found. They are open to suggestions but anticipate that the number of explanations will be as numerous as the ufologists.

Common explanations like ball lightning or will-o'-the-wisps are discussed, but the authors find them insufficient to explain the duration and diverse behaviors of the observed phenomena, including the 'humanoid form' or luminous tubes. They argue that even the most 'classic' cases are being questioned today, but they believe all cases should be reported to the public, allowing individuals to form their own opinions.

The author notes the difficulty of being both an investigator and a witness, facing suspicion and doubt. They assert that they have reported their experiences honestly, acknowledging potential gaps due to the eight-year passage of time. They are open to demonstration if they have misinterpreted natural phenomena, stating they are neither credulous nor obstinate.

Notes and Announcements

Page 6 contains 'NOTES... ANNONCES DIVERSES...' (Notes... Miscellaneous Announcements...). It details the 'RESEAU DEPARTEMENTAL DE DETECTION O.V.N.I. 5255' (Departmental UFO Detection Network 5255), aiming to reorganize the detection network in the Haute-Marne and Meuse departments and inviting interested individuals to participate.

Under the heading 'QUE FAIRE EN CAS D'OBSERVATION D' OVNI ?' (What to do in case of a UFO observation?), practical advice is given: note maximum details (date, time, location, weather, sky conditions, presence of celestial bodies), take multiple photos of the phenomenon and surrounding landscape (without flash at night, max aperture), and contact them rapidly.

An 'APPEL A TEMOINS' (Call for Witnesses) from GROUPE 5255 and the regional delegation of 'LUMIERES DANS LA NUIT' seeks individuals who have witnessed UFOs or other unusual manifestations in Haute-Marne and Meuse, assuring discretion and anonymity.

The section 'AGISSEZ !' (Act!) encourages active participation, stating that collective effort is needed to advance the study of the phenomenon. It also requests witnesses to update their addresses for regular receipt of the revue and encourages memberships to stay informed about regional ufological activity.

Finally, it mentions a French revue known for its seriousness, 'LUMIERES DANS LA NUIT' (LDLN), which covers UFO phenomena and related issues. Contact information is provided for M. Raymond VEILLITH. The section concludes with a note authorizing the reproduction of articles and documents, provided the source is clearly indicated.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are UFO sightings, witness testimony, the challenges of ufological investigation, and the exploration of various hypotheses. The editorial stance is one of cautious empiricism, emphasizing the reporting of observed facts while acknowledging the difficulty in finding rational explanations. The authors present themselves as open-minded but not credulous, seeking to document phenomena and encourage further investigation and reporting. There is a clear call for collective action and information sharing within the ufological community in France.