La ligne bleue survolee - No 11 - 1984

Magazine Overview

Title: LA LIGNE BLEUE SURVOLEE
Issue: 11
Date: 1984
Publisher: CERCLE VOSGIEN LUMIERES DANS LA NUIT
Country: France
ISSN: 0293-2032

This issue of the bulletin "La Ligne Bleue Survolée" (The Blue Line Overflown?) from the Cercle Vosgien Lumières Dans La Nuit focuses on a detailed investigation into a UFO sighting. The cover features a stylized map of France overlaid with the word "OVNI" and the main headline.

Contents Overview

The bulletin includes sections such as "DE TROUBLANTES SIMILITUDES" (Disturbing Similarities), an inquiry file (ENQUETE F/98/88820928 (01)), "ARCHIVES DE PRESSE" (Press Archives), and a "CATALOGUE CNEGU 1982".

The Cercle Vosgien Lumières Dans La Nuit

The publication is the bulletin of the Cercle Vosgien Lumières Dans La Nuit, a delegation for the Vosges region of "Lumières Dans La Nuit" and a member of the Comité Nord-Est des Groupements Ufologiques (CNEGU). The address provided is 1, Rue Côte Champion, 88000 EPINAL. The issue lists the organization's leadership and responsible activities:

• President: François DIOLEZ
• Vice-President: René FAUDRIN
• Treasurer: Jacques NICOT
• Secretary: Joëlle GERBY
• Adjoint Secretaries: Sylviane GOLCZEWSKI and Gilles MUNSCH

Responsible Activities:

• Enquiries Commission: Gilles MUNSCH
• Observation Evenings: Sylviane GOLCZEWSKI
• Liaisons with Other Groups: René FAUDRIN
• Archives: Gilles MUNSCH
• Review: Joëlle GERBY and François DIOLEZ
• Technical Support: Robert GOLCZEWSKI
• Astronomy: Sylviane GOLCZEWSKI and Gilles MUNSCH
• Press Liaison: René FAUDRIN
• Library: François DIOLEZ

The review is transmitted to French and foreign groups as an exchange. Articles published engage only the author, and reproduction requires the agreement of the CVLDLN.

Case Study: Le Thillot Sighting

The main focus of the issue is the detailed reconstruction of events from a sighting that occurred on Tuesday, September 28, 1982, between 8:45 PM and 9:00 PM (7:45 PM - 8:00 PM TU) in Le Thillot (88). The report is based on the account of witnesses Mr. Pierre S. and his wife, Françoise.

Initial Observation:

While watching television, Pierre noticed two unusual, large white lights in the sky. He called his wife, Françoise, who initially dismissed it. Pierre then retrieved a pair of 10x50 binoculars and went out onto the terrace with Françoise.

Object Description:

Through the binoculars, they observed a dark, large-sized shape connecting the two lights, which was also slightly discernible to the naked eye. The phenomenon then appeared to ascend slowly and move towards the witnesses. As it passed overhead, they described the dark shape as "boomerang"-like, with a small orange light in its central front part. Pierre noted a faint, diffuse, whitish luminosity within the dark shape, suggesting a translucent quality. A faint "humming" sound, likened to a distant airplane, was perceived.

Progression and Disappearance:

The phenomenon then disappeared behind the house roof. Pierre followed it around the house and observed it moving north with a slight curve to the left. He noted a new aspect: a very dark, thin, angular central structure at the front, perpendicular to the "boomerang" shape. A second small orange light was visible at the rear of this "fuselage." The object then disappeared behind a neighboring mountain in the direction of Saulxures-sur-Moselotte (88).

Witness Reactions and Details:

No secondary effects were noted by the witnesses, and the television was not affected. The "humming" was the only sound. Pierre was particularly struck by the object's "enormous" size. Both witnesses felt a sense of unease, especially Pierre in retrospect. It was their first such observation, and while aware of UFOs through the media, they had not paid particular attention. The weather was clear with visible stars, minimal wind, and a mild temperature.

The witnesses concluded that their observation was unlikely to be an aircraft and only spoke about it to a few people, with no press articles or police reports filed.

Phases of Observation (Illustrated):

• Phase 1: Object observed stationary above a factory, with two white lights at its extremities. It then began a vertical ascent.
• Phase 2: Object moved horizontally towards the witnesses, passing overhead. The "boomerang" shape with a central orange light became clearer. Binoculars revealed a faint, non-uniform luminosity in the central dark area.
• Phase 3: One witness observed the object from the side as it moved away. Binoculars revealed a more detailed central structure: a slender, dark, angular front and a second orange light at the rear. The object then moved slowly to disappear behind the mountain.

Sketches and Summary:

Sketches were made based on the witnesses' descriptions. For the entire observation, key points were: little noise, no flashing lights (white or orange), and a slightly curved horizontal trajectory with a regular left turn.

Gendarmerie Nationale Report

A check with the Gendarmerie Nationale in Le Thillot on November 15, 1982, revealed no official or rumored UFO sightings for September 28, 1982. The last reported UFO case dated back to February 15, 1980. The gendarmerie agent was informed of the potential observation for the first time.

Miscellaneous Information

Astronomy:

• No planets visible except Mercury and Neptune (telescopic).
• Sunset on September 30: 5:31 PM TU (6:31 PM local time).
• Moon phase: 11th day, first quarter on September 25, full moon on October 1.
• Meteor shower: Taurids starting September 24.
• Daylight saving time change: Winter time on September 26, 1982 (HL = TU + 1h).

Aviation:

• Radar: Unreported aircraft positions are only known by the CONTREXEVILLE base if they enter restricted zones. Radar recordings are kept for 1 to 3 months. IFR flights leave a trace for at least a month.
• Flights: Visual flight was prohibited from approximately 7:00 PM (HL) on September 28. Aero-clubs were officially closed on Tuesdays.
• Signaling: Standard aircraft lights include two fixed white anti-collision lights on wingtips, one fixed red light at the front, one flashing red light at the rear, and normally one red light (fixed or flashing) in the middle.

Civil Aviation Activity - Telephone Conversation:

On February 15, 1983, the author received a call from Mr. G., Deputy Head of the Lorraine Aeronautics District at NANCY-ESSEY aerodrome. Mr. G. was responding to an inquiry about the Le Thillot sighting. He stated that if the object was an aircraft, two possibilities existed: an instrument flight by a civilian aircraft or a visual flight by a small private aircraft from an aeroclub. He considered both probabilities "very low" given the time of observation (shortly after sunset) and the location (free airspace, not on a regular flight path). He also noted that information on flights is archived for only three months after an accident investigation, and then destroyed, making it impossible to retrieve records for the September 1982 sighting. He suggested contacting civil aeroclubs, which are required to archive their flight logs for security checks. Mr. G. offered future assistance if contacted promptly within the three-month window.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The bulletin emphasizes the importance of rigorous information gathering and analysis in ufology, lamenting the current state where this principle is not always respected. The publication aims to compile and analyze UFO reports, seeking similarities and providing detailed case studies. The editorial stance appears to be one of serious investigation, attempting to provide rational explanations where possible (e.g., aviation) while thoroughly documenting unexplained phenomena. The organization acts as a hub for UFO information in its region, exchanging data with other groups and maintaining archives.

This issue of the magazine, identified by the volume and issue number F/98/88820928 (01), features the cover title "LE MEILLEUR CAS UFO DES USA ?" and is dated September 28, 1983. It appears to be a French publication focusing on UFO and UAP phenomena, with a significant portion dedicated to a case from the USA.

Investigations in France

The initial sections detail investigations conducted in France concerning UFO sightings. A correspondent, Mr. G. MUNSCH, reports on his inquiries with military and meteorological authorities. A letter sent to the Base Aérienne militaire de LUXEUIL-SAINT-SAUVEUR on December 9, 1982, received a response on February 7, 1983, after a two-month transit through military channels. The response from the French Air Force indicated that no known military aircraft activity matched the reported sighting. The Centre de Détection et de Contrôle stated that due to the case's age (over three months), they could no longer authenticate a low-altitude flight in the area. Mr. G. MUNSCH also consulted with EDF-GDF (electricity and gas services) regarding potential electrical disturbances. Employees at the SAULXURES-SUR-MOSELOTTE substation indicated that the relevant high-tension line (63,000 Volts) was managed by the Centre Régional de Transport et Télécommunication (CRTT) in VINCEY. An inquiry with the CRTT in VINCEY on March 2, 1983, revealed no recorded perturbations on the high-tension line corresponding to the observation dates. The CRTT representative expressed interest in the UFO phenomenon but had no prior cases of electrical disturbances coinciding with UFO sightings.

Meteorological information from the STATION de LUXEUIL-SAINT-SAUVEUR is also presented, providing weather conditions for 19h and 20h TU, including wind, visibility, cloud cover, temperature, and pressure. This data was considered relevant to the region of LE THILLOT.

The "Boomerang" Case in the USA

The main focus of the issue is a detailed report on a series of UFO sightings that occurred over three nights in March 1983 in Westchester, Putnam, and Fairfield, states of New York and Connecticut, USA. This case is presented as potentially the most remarkable UFO event of 1983 in the USA.

March 24, 1983 Sightings:

• YORKOWN, New York (19:00): Approximately a hundred inhabitants, including police officers, observed a boomerang or V-shaped object with white, red, and green lights moving slowly northeast. A faint humming sound was heard. The object's wingspan was estimated at 200 feet or more.
• MOUNT KISCO, New York (21:00): Ten witnesses reported a large, colored object (around 500 feet) over Route I-684. Some observers stopped their cars to watch. One witness described a row of bright lights (red, blue-green, white) in a V-formation as the object passed about 300 feet overhead. A light humming sound was noted, and the object's speed was estimated at 35 mph.
• MAHOPEC, New York (21:00-21:30): A large, luminous boomerang-shaped object, about 150 feet wide with numerous blue-green and white lights, was observed. Hundreds of witnesses saw it. A police officer reported hearing a slight hum. Other witnesses saw the object over a lake, moving slowly before disappearing north.
• NEW CASTLE, New York (21:10): An object the size of a 747, shaped like a boomerang with red, blue, green, and white lights, moved at about 100 feet altitude over a field before ascending vertically and departing towards YORKTOWN.
• YORKTOWN, New York (approx. 21:00): About fifty people observed the same object moving low and slowly, causing traffic to stop on the TACONIC PARKWAY.
• BREWSTER, New York (approx. 22:00): Several families saw a large, triangular object with bright white lights flying slowly northeast, accompanied by a humming sound.

March 17, 1983 Sighting:

• BREWSTER, New York (20:30-21:15): 25 residents saw a large boomerang-shaped object about 130 feet above the ground, moving slowly northeast. It made remarkable maneuvers, flying very low over houses and gardens. A bright white light illuminated the ground, and a slight humming filled the air.

March 26, 1983 Sighting:

• MAHOPEC LAKE, New York (21:20): Witnesses observed a large boomerang-shaped object with multicolored lights and a large amber-yellow lamp. It was seen moving slowly north over a lake. One observer noted a dark, metallic part encompassing the lights.

Additional Details and Analysis:

The report mentions that the case was investigated by Philip Imbrogno and his colleagues, who conducted extensive interviews. They found no simple explanations and considered the case to be highly significant. The objects were described as having a great distribution of red, white, green, and blue lights, with a central amber-yellow light. They moved gently, with a humming or rumbling sound, and were often close to the ground. Some witnesses approached within 100-200 feet. The altitude was estimated between 60 and 500 feet.

Another section discusses a similar case from August 16, 1975, in Gruson, France, involving a boomerang-shaped object that chased a couple's vehicle. This object was described as having a white and red light and resembled a Northrop X B 35 prototype.

Conclusion and Comments

The author concludes that a conventional explanation involving civil or military aircraft seems unlikely given the details. Several points challenge this hypothesis: the descriptions provided by two credible witnesses differed significantly from known aircraft, the initial low altitude of the object, its apparent immobility for several seconds, the lack of perceived noise (except for a faint hum), the absence of blinking lights (often observed in such cases), and confirmation from official sources that no military or civil flights were scheduled on that axis at that time. The apparent size of the object during the flyover (4 degrees with binoculars) suggests a significant size for an aircraft at an estimated altitude of 1000 meters.

The witnesses are described as highly credible, serious, and educated individuals. The observation was initially private and not widely publicized. The witnesses themselves excluded the 'airplane' hypothesis without proposing an alternative. The main witness was open to the UFO phenomenon, while his wife was more reserved. Rumors of other people observing similar lights that evening could not be confirmed.

The investigation was conducted from October 29, 1983, to April 2, 1984, for the C.V.L.D.L.N.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes are the investigation of unexplained aerial phenomena, the meticulous collection of eyewitness testimony, the cross-referencing with official data (military, meteorological, electrical), and the analysis of physical characteristics of reported objects. The editorial stance appears to be one of serious inquiry, acknowledging the credibility of witnesses and the limitations of conventional explanations, while remaining open to the possibility of unknown phenomena. The publication encourages readers to submit any plausible explanations for the cases presented.

This issue of "LES COMMENTAIRES DU C.U.F.O.S." (1) delves into various unexplained aerial phenomena, primarily focusing on a significant "boomerang" shaped object sighting in the New York area in March 1983. The publication, dated 1959 but containing articles referencing later events, presents a critical analysis of witness testimonies and explores potential explanations, often contrasting them with conventional aircraft capabilities.

Analysis of the "Boomerang" Object Case (New York, March 1983)

The central theme revolves around a series of observations of a "boomerang" shaped object over the New York region. The article highlights the improbability of such sightings occurring frequently or being easily explained by natural phenomena, especially given the consistency of witness reports. It notes that 97% of witnesses reported a large number of lights forming a collar around the object, which did not vary in relative position, making formation flying by small aircraft unlikely.

The possibility of a secret military machine being tested in a semi-inhabited area near New York is raised, questioning why it would be tested in such a specific region for several nights and not elsewhere. The article dismisses helicopter formations due to their inability to maintain rigid formations for extended periods close to the ground while producing only a slight hum. Similarly, lighter-than-air craft like the Goodyear blimp are deemed unsuitable due to their shape and speed limitations.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reportedly stated that no traditional aircraft were in the area during the reported times. The "International UFO REPORTER" (July-August 1983) is cited, noting that the "boomerang" object remains an enigma despite ongoing research by Philip Imbrogno, George Lesnick, and Chris Clark. Reporter Ed Walzer of the REPORTER DISPATCH also investigated the case.

While some cases involving pilots flying in formation have been explained, the "boomerang" phenomenon's slow, tranquil movement and occasional hovering remain unexplained. The article suggests that the widespread reporting of this object might indicate a natural explanation related to a known craft, but the specific craft remains unidentified.

A global study of spectacular cases is mentioned, noting that publicity around local cases leads many people to actively search for UFOs, resulting in sightings of various objects, from aircraft to Venus. Reports from Stormville Airport in Duchess Country, New York, on July 14th, indicated sightings of three small planes in formation, suggesting that some reports might indeed be related to formation flights. However, this does not resolve the core mystery of the March sightings.

Previous observations of the object were noted up to 1980, with limited witnesses and confined to Westchester and Putnam regions. After a lull, observations resumed in early April 1983, paused until mid-June, and then reappeared from mid-June to mid-July, with some being corroborated by formation flights.

Comments from C.E.N.A.P.

The C.E.N.A.P. (Centrales Erforschungsnetz Außergewöhnlicher Phänomène) comments that a great mystery surrounds these observations, with nothing similar having been seen in Europe, particularly Germany. They emphasize the importance of distinguishing between genuine UFOs and misidentified objects, noting that some "boomerang" shaped objects have been identified as small aircraft formations. The C.E.N.A.P. acknowledges that some witnesses claim their observations could not be explained by aircraft formations, suggesting these witnesses may have observed the phenomenon closely enough to rule out such explanations.

Distances and altitudes are often misjudged at night, leading to objects appearing larger and closer than they are. The C.E.N.A.P. points to a documentary film "THE CASE FOR UFOS" shown at a previous CENAP-Meeting in Mannheim, which featured a formation of lights that turned out to be a Cessna 150 equipped with a net containing numerous lights.

Allen Hendry's book on UFOs is cited, stating that 22% of unidentified aerial phenomena (NL-IFOs) are attributable to advertising planes, even in cases of CE III (Close Encounters of the Third Kind). For CE I (Close Encounters within 500 meters), 61% of cases are attributed to such aircraft.

The C.E.N.A.P. estimates that the New York UFO wave in March 1983 was likely caused by such an aircraft, citing its low speed and basic structure as supporting evidence. They include diagrams from Hendry's "UFO HANDBOOK" illustrating how witnesses might misinterpret such aircraft as UFOs.

Annex: "Boomerang" Object Observations (March 24, 1983)

An annex details the flight path of the "BOOMERANG" object on March 24, 1983, between 7:00 PM and 10:45 PM, across 16 locations including Yorktown, Ossining, New Castle, Croton, Peekskill, Chappagua, Mount Kisco, Mahopec, Carmel, Brewster, Putnam Lake, North Salem, Salem, and finally Danbury, Connecticut. A map illustrates these locations. The annex also presents a selection of typical sketches of advertising planes with flashing night signs, suggesting that many reported UFOs might be these conventional aircraft, with witnesses potentially misinterpreting the lights or structures.

Statistical Data on Observations

Page 5 presents statistical data compiled from observations, including:

• Observed Shape: Boomerang (90%), Triangle (9%), Other (1%).
• Lights: Blue-green, red, white, and amber (85%), Red, blue (5%), White (5%), Unsure (5%).
• Relative Light Position: Fixed (97%).
• Size: Greater than 100 feet (60%), Greater than 300 feet (35%), Greater than 900 feet (5%).
• Sound: Humming (65%), No noise (30%), Cannot recall (5%).
• Duration of Observation: 10 to 20 minutes (95%), 10 minutes (5%).
• Hovering in Air: Yes (80%), No (20%).
• Speed: Very slow (90%), Fast (5%), Slow then fast (5%).
• Distance from Observers: Less than 500 feet (80%), More than 500 feet (15%), Unsure (5%).
• Mode of Disappearance: Behind the horizon (75%), Flashing then disappearing (20%), Simply disappeared (5%).
• Witness Reactions: None (85%), Psychic connection (10%), Unsure (5%). (3% reported animal reactions).

Case Analysis by G.M.

The author, G.M., analyzes the case of M. and Mme S., finding that a separate investigation does not allow for a definitive conclusion regarding the nature of their observation. He considers the possibility of confusion with civil or military aircraft but finds counter-arguments. Witnesses formally deny the aircraft explanation, and their cultural level suggests they would accept a rational explanation if well-argued. Mme S. herself does not believe in UFOs.

The apparent size observed through binoculars is significant, suggesting a low altitude for an aircraft. Only a slight humming was perceived, whereas conventional aircraft at low altitudes at night are usually less discreet. The observed lights did not conform to air regulations, nor to typical aircraft lights, and no blinking was noted by M. and Mme S. There was no official air traffic along the observed route, nor any reported military maneuvers. A possible hovering phase at the beginning of the observation is noted.

G.M. concludes that the aircraft hypothesis is far from proven, and the recurring "boomerang" shape, reminiscent of aircraft wings, further casts doubt on this explanation. He notes that he was unaware of similar cases during his initial investigation, and the witnesses are also unaware of them.

He observes that detailed observations often reappear in different locations and times with striking similarity, a phenomenon he finds curious but inconclusive.

Related Cases and Conclusion

Since the M. and Mme S. observation, other cases with curious analogies have appeared. One cited by Robert Roussel involves a boomerang shape with commonalities but also notable divergences, geographically close (France) and temporally prior. More significantly, the New York mini-wave cited by CENAP and described by CUFOS presents strong similarities. The main difference noted is the large number of lights observed in the New York wave, which is not unusual as reports often mention lights turning on and off.

However, G.M. contrasts this with his case being an isolated observation, unlike the New York wave which involved hundreds of witnesses. He refrains from advancing any hypothesis, choosing instead to note the similarities. He intends to contact CUFOS directly to obtain more precise information on the New York cases.

He concludes by stating that it is not the first time he has observed detailed descriptions reappearing elsewhere with remarkable similarity, a fact that sharpens his curiosity.

Archived Press Articles

The issue also includes archived press clippings:

• EST REPUBLICAIN - May 14, 1959: Reports on Soviet astronomer CHKLOVSKY's theory that Martians launched artificial satellites two billion years ago, based on scientific research.
• EST REPUBLICAIN - May 19, 1959: "The messenger from space meets Queen JULIANA." Georges Adamski, a self-proclaimed "messenger of space," was scheduled to meet Queen Juliana of the Netherlands, causing consternation among her entourage.
• EST REPUBLICAIN - October 5, 1959: A Soviet review suggests a possible extraterrestrial nuclear explosion occurred over Siberia on June 30, 1908. This theory was first advanced in 1950 and was the subject of a new investigation by a scientific expedition.
• EST REPUBLICAIN - October 24, 1959: Reports on two mysterious projectiles falling in Holland, creating unknown cavities in a pasture near Warmer. The area was declared a military zone, guarded by armed sentinels, indicating the seriousness with which the Dutch army was treating the incident.
• LA GAZETTE VOSGIENNE - June 27, 1869: Describes the phenomenon of "The suns of TRINITE," where multiple suns were observed, including a distinct reflection of the sun. This is explained as a natural phenomenon, though some believe it to be an annual, periodic event related to sun worship.

Catalog of Observations C.N.E.G.U. - 1982

A section provides information about the C.N.E.G.U. (a UFO research group) and its 1982 catalog of observations. It lists member groups and explains that the catalog is an annual, non-exhaustive list of alleged unidentified aerospace phenomena. The information includes dates, times, locations, number and quality of witnesses, and a brief description of the phenomena. It notes that the information may not have been verified and could include hoaxes or misidentifications. The catalog aims to provide a synthetic overview of observations in a region and serve as an informational base.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue include the persistent mystery of unidentified aerial phenomena, the challenge of distinguishing between genuine UFOs and misidentified conventional aircraft (particularly advertising planes), and the analysis of witness testimony. The editorial stance appears to be one of critical inquiry, presenting various hypotheses and evidence while acknowledging the limitations of current explanations. There is a clear emphasis on rigorous investigation and a cautious approach to drawing conclusions, as exemplified by G.M.'s concluding remarks on the striking similarities found in seemingly disparate cases. The inclusion of historical and international reports broadens the scope of UFO research presented.

This document is a catalog of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) observations compiled by the C.N.E.G.U. (Centre National d'Étude des Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non Identifiés) for the year 1982. Titled 'CATALOGUE D'OBSERVATIONS C.N.E.G.U. ANNEE 1982', it includes a section for 'PRECISIONS ET COMMENTAIRES' and is presented as a continuation of previous editions.

Catalog of Observations (1982)

The catalog lists several individual UAP sightings, each with a reference number (Réf: F/...), an 'IC' classification code, date, location, witness information, and a description of the phenomenon. The 'IC' codes appear to be a classification system, with values like 1,1,1,0,1 (3) and 1,1,1,1,1 (5) noted.

Incident 1: Laignes (21), March 22, 1982
Witness Monsieur X..., a 62-year-old retiree, observed a large, dark 'saucer' with a pulsating yellow dome and an orange halo. The object was seen at an azimuth of 113° (E-S-E) and an elevation of 25°, estimated to be ten kilometers away. It remained immobile for a moment before executing a sharp turn and accelerating away at high speed. No sound was reported. This case is cross-referenced with another report (F/ /21820608).

Incident 2: Laignes (21), June 8, 1982
Monsieur X... (the same witness as above), accompanied by a 22-year-old witness, observed a luminous oval object of white color. It was seen at an azimuth of 330° (N-N-O) at an elevation of 35°. The apparent angular size was estimated between 40" and 50". No sound was reported. A photograph was taken, but subsequent analysis and investigation revealed numerous 'doubtful' points, suggesting a possible hoax. The second witness could not be identified, significantly diminishing the credibility of this case and the previous one.

Incident 3: Damas-et-Bettegney (88), June 22, 1982
Madame Z.., 56 years old, observed four 'luminous points' of red color moving slowly in formation, forming a quadrilateral, from east to west. Her daughter, aged 19, also witnessed the silent phenomenon for about fifteen minutes. The angular height was estimated at 50°, with azimuth varying from 165° to 210°. The first witness reported that two of the points seemed to flash, but this was not corroborated by her daughter. A note indicates that another daughter of Mme Z.. had previously observed an unidentified phenomenon.

Incident 4: Laferte-sur-Aube (52), August 19, 1982
Mr André 1...... observed a stationary 'object' in the sky, at an angular height of 14°. It was described as a 'perfect round' with sharp contours, red-orange in color, and scintillating. After a few seconds, the object disappeared. The witness has only one valid eye and wears tinted glasses. He could not estimate the altitude or distance. The investigation concluded that the phenomenon remains unexplained.

Incident 5: Ancerville (55), September 13, 1982
Mr Roger T...., an ufologist, observed a bright white 'ball' with two orange lights (one above, one below) that reflected slightly on the ball. The object slowed down for a few seconds before resuming its course without sound and disappearing suddenly. The observation lasted 15 to 20 seconds. The report notes the passage of eight Jaguar aircraft in the vicinity around the same time. The investigation has not yet provided an explanation.

Incident 6: Le Thillot (88), September 28, 1982
Mr P..... S and his wife F........ observed two large, unusual white lights in the sky. They then saw a dark, large shape connecting the two lights. The phenomenon ascended slowly and moved towards them, appearing to have a 'boomerang' shape with a small orange light in the front. Using binoculars, they perceived a faint, diffuse luminosity. A slight 'humming' sound was heard. The phenomenon disappeared behind a house and then moved northwards. A second, thinner structure was then visible, perpendicular to the 'boomerang', with a small orange light at the rear. It then disappeared behind a neighboring mountain. No secondary effects were noted, and the trajectory followed a high-voltage line without causing perturbation. The witnesses are described as serious and credible.

Incident 7: Zillisheim (68), November 1, 1982
A young motorist, Mr T...... S....., was driving through the Hardt forest when his car was suddenly bathed in blue light coming from above. The car began to sway, and the engine ran rough, with radio static. The light followed the car, and the witness felt as if the vehicle was about to take off. A white light was seen in the rear of the vehicle in the rearview mirror. The light then faded as the car entered Habsheim, and the luminous object disappeared above the forest.

Incident 8: Semur et Villenotte (21), November 13, 1982
Mile X... and a friend were driving when they observed a luminous object on a mountain. It was described as flattened oval, like two inverted plates, surrounded by a yellow-orange luminosity. They initially thought it was car headlights. The object passed between two mountain peaks. They concluded it was neither an airplane nor a helicopter. No sound or secondary effects were reported. The investigation is ongoing and notes that multiple 'details' cast doubt on the credibility of this observation.

Incident 9: Hardt Forest, near Kembs (68), April 9, 1980
Mile P....... ......, a 27-year-old pharmacy technician, reported being pursued by a UFO for three kilometers in the Hardt forest. A luminous white 'ball' approached her car, forcing her to turn around. At the entrance to Kembs, her vehicle stalled. She fled on foot and sought refuge in a nearby house. The inhabitants, Mr and Mme L..., later observed a 'flying saucer', described as large as three airplane lights, immobile and silent, with swirling white lights. The UFO disappeared shortly after.

Map and Errata

Page 7 contains a simplified map of the Nord-Est region of France for 1982, showing the distribution of UAP observations with different symbols for 'IC=5', 'IC=4', and 'IC=3'. An errata on page 4 corrects the scale of a simplified map from a 1981 edition, stating that 1 cm equals 10 km, not 1 km.

Precisions et Commentaires

This section, on pages 7 and 8, provides context and commentary on the catalog. It explains that the catalog lists UAP observations known to the member groups of C.N.E.G.U. as of December 31, 1983, for specific departments and Luxembourg, covering the year 1982. The document notes the relatively low number of observations (8) in 1982, which seemed to continue into 1983. Due to this low frequency, a detailed synthesis was deemed unnecessary, allowing for direct reading of the document. The restructuring of C.N.E.G.U. (departure of CONTROL, arrival of GHREPA) and the previous points led to the decision to abandon the large-scale map in favor of the C.N.E.G.U. symbology, with a new map planned. The difficulty in obtaining detailed information from each group within a reasonable timeframe is regretted. The use of the 'Questionnaire-Rapport-Type (CNEGU)' is becoming more widespread but remains insufficient. The document emphasizes the need for more careful and rigorous completion of these reports. The author encourages everyone to redouble their efforts during this period of 'low activity' to identify and fill gaps, viewing this 'truce' as an 'oxygen boost'. The section is signed by G. Munsch (CVLDLN) for C.N.E.G.U. A post-scriptum (P.S.) invites readers to report any errors or provide clarifications, stating that their critiques and suggestions will be welcomed.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the detailed reporting and investigation of UAP sightings in France during 1982. The editorial stance, as expressed by G. Munsch, is one of persistent research and data collection, even during periods of perceived low activity. There is an emphasis on the importance of rigorous methodology, accurate reporting, and the critical analysis of evidence, acknowledging that not all observed phenomena are easily explained or immediately credible. The publication aims to compile and disseminate this information for further study and understanding.