Mysteres De L'Est - No 03 - 1997

Magazine Overview

Title: LES MYSTÈRES DE L'EST
Issue: N° 3
Year: 1997
Publisher: CNEGU (Comité Nord-Est des Groupes Ufologiques)
Type: UFO Bulletin

Editorial Stance and Critique of Ufology

The editorial, titled "CROYEZ CE QUE JE DIS et NE REGARDEZ PAS CE QUE JE FAIS!", sets a critical tone for the issue. The author expresses concern about the tendency within some UFO publications and personalities to adopt an aura of journalistic, scientific, or sociological objectivity while potentially engaging in sensationalism or mercantilism. Perry Pétrakis's editorial in PHENOMENA is mentioned as an example, cautioning against the dangers of UFOs being linked to cults or far-right conspiracy theories. However, the author questions the true critical stance of such publications, suggesting that a "zest of critical thinking" can be counterproductive if not consistently applied, leading readers to believe extraordinary claims until explicitly refuted.

The article critiques Renaud Marhic's approach, which seems to prioritize expert opinions over amateur observations, even when experts admit ignorance. The bulletin contrasts this with its own approach, highlighting how CNEGU amateurs have found solutions to cases where specialists have faltered. It also points out that certain significant conclusions from documents like SAROS, and cases like Cussac and "l'affaire de Trans," have been downplayed or ignored by some publications, while questionable data, such as the "25G accelerations" from the SAROS radar, have been supported.

Pierre Lagrange, editor-in-chief of ANOMALIES, is also scrutinized. While presenting himself as a neutral observer and sociologist, his explanations for cases like Valensole are questioned for their potential bias. The bulletin suggests that Lagrange's work, particularly in publications like SCIENCE&VIE and SCIENCE&VIE JUNIOR, sometimes appears to favor ET narratives, despite his stated neutrality. The article notes ANOMALIES's prominent mention in a SCIENCE&VIE special issue on UFOs, implying a strategic positioning.

The author of the editorial expresses pride in being part of CNEGU, a volunteer team dedicated to understanding UFO phenomena through open discussion and in-depth case studies. They aim to provide information without blind belief or careerist ambition, contrasting this with what they perceive as the less rigorous or more compromised approaches of other ufological groups.

Presentation of CNEGU

The issue includes a presentation of the Comité Nord-Est des Groupes Ufologiques (CNEGU), founded in 1978. CNEGU's primary activity involves verifying UFO sighting testimonies through investigations and inquiries. They aim to develop a rational methodology for analyzing information on the phenomenon, drawing on archives, regional observation catalogs, and specific studies. CNEGU fosters cooperation with other researchers and public organizations, with the goal of improving national knowledge of UFOs. The bulletin "Les Mystères de l'Est" is published by CNEGU to disseminate their findings. The presentation lists the current members of CNEGU, including Ghislain Dominé, Gilles Durand, Joëlle Gerby, Francine Juncosa, Patrick Fournel, Renaud Leclet, Eric Maillot, Gilles Munsch, Raoul Robé, Patrice Vachon, and Christine Zwygart.

Contents of Issue N° 3

The table of contents reveals several sections:

• Les travaux du CNEGU (The Work of CNEGU): This section includes articles such as "Contact avec un homme vert à Gué d'Hossus" (Contact with a green man at Gué d'Hossus), "Similitude entre SF et Ufo" (Similarity between SF and UFO), "Flagrant délit de faux et d'usage de faux" (Blatant case of forgery and use of forgery), "Le cas du Malmont" (The Malmont case), "St Vallier-de-Thiey," "Journal de voyage" (Travel journal), and "Mimétisme: true lies ou la totale !" (Mimicry: true lies or the whole story!).
• Les Ovni dans la presse (UFOs in the Press): This section likely reviews UFO-related news from various media outlets.
• La tribune de l'extérieur (The Tribune from the Outside): An article titled "D'un mauvais usage certain de la S.F." (Of a certain misuse of Science Fiction) is featured.
• Le courrier des lecteurs (Readers' Mail): A section for correspondence from readers.
• Le pêle-mêle (The Hodgepodge): A miscellaneous section.

Article: Contact with a Green Man at Gué d'Hossus (08)

This article details an investigation into an event at Gué d'Hossus (Ardennes) on the night of March 5-6, 1994. The authors, including Renaud Leclet, recount their encounter with Mr. Wiart, a forest ranger who offered insights. The initial observation involved a strong light source, described as more powerful than stadium floodlights, with a beam 8 meters high and 130 meters wide, situated 50 cm above the ground. The witnesses, MM. Namèche and Simon, initially thought it was vehicle headlights but became frightened by the intensity and turned back. The light lasted about 6 minutes, with no audible sound. No UFO was observed.

The following day, a circular trace of reddish grass, approximately 5 meters in diameter, was found in the area where the light beam was observed. Mr. Wiart provided samples of the plant, identified as Carex Ovalis, which were analyzed by the Departmental Agriculture Directorate and found to be normal, with no abnormal alterations, contrary to claims by some local ufologists. The trace was noted to be within the axis of the light source, which was the only link to the phenomenon.

Several hypotheses were considered for the light source. The possibility of poachers using powerful vehicle headlights or portable halogens was discussed, but the location being a protected biological reserve with a closed access road made vehicle entry unlikely. The duration of the light (10 minutes) was also considered too long for poachers who would risk being detected. Another hypothesis suggested a civilian or military helicopter landing with its front light on, possibly to transfer personnel, referencing a prior incident involving military activity in the area.

The most plausible hypothesis, according to Mr. Wiart and the authors, is that of a hunter of nocturnal butterflies. These rare butterflies are attracted to powerful lights, especially in humid conditions with light mist, which was present that night. The hunter might have used a powerful projector to attract the butterflies, or a technique involving a white sheet illuminated by the projector. This hypothesis gained traction when, indirectly, it was learned that someone had engaged in this prohibited hunting activity in the area around the same time. The authors note that while this mystery is likely solved, obtaining definitive proof is improbable.

The article also touches upon the investigation by SEPRA (CNES), which concluded the witnesses were reliable. However, the report from SEPRA, expected by the Rocroi town hall and ONF, had not been received by 1997, leading to questions about why public service information might be withheld.

History to Laugh About

This section examines other hypotheses proposed for the Gué d'Hossus event:

• Tourism plane immobilization: The idea of a tourist plane stopping overhead was dismissed because witnesses reported hearing no engine noise.
• Luminous plant: The suggestion of a plant emitting light was presented as a sensationalist claim by a journalist.
• Two circles: A claim of two concentric circles, one 5.60 meters and another 0.70 meters in diameter, totaling 7 meters, was made. It was suggested that the gendarmerie's placement of a protective barrier around the carex zone might have created a second, smaller circle due to visitors walking around it.
• "Witch's broom" (rond de sorcière): SOS OVNI consulted a biology and ecology specialist about the trace being a "witch's broom." The specialist could not provide a definitive answer without samples and analysis. The article implies that contacting local CNEGU members or ONF would have provided a more informed response.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue of "Les Mystères de l'Est" include a critical examination of ufological research and reporting, a focus on investigative journalism, and a skepticism towards sensationalism and unsubstantiated claims. The bulletin champions a rigorous, evidence-based approach, contrasting its methods with those perceived as more compromised or less objective in the ufological community. There is a strong emphasis on debunking or providing terrestrial explanations for phenomena, as seen in the Gué d'Hossus case. The publication also critiques the media's role in ufology and the potential for bias in scientific and journalistic reporting on the subject. The overall editorial stance is one of promoting critical thinking, transparency, and a dedication to genuine understanding over popular sensationalism.

This issue of L'Ardennais, dated March 15, 1994, features a prominent article titled "Etrange lumière à Rocroi : les témoins racontent" (Strange light in Rocroi: the witnesses recount), detailing an unusual event witnessed by two local men. The magazine also includes a section on the investigation into the Gué d'Hossus phenomenon, featuring contributions from various experts and researchers.

"Etrange lumière à Rocroi : les témoins racontent"

The main article recounts the experience of Alban Simon and Christophe Namèche, who, on the night of March 5-6, 1994, near Rocroi in the Ardennes, France, witnessed a powerful, silent light. They described it as being much brighter than football stadium spotlights, with no accompanying sound or movement that would suggest an aircraft. The light, described as white and tending towards yellow, appeared as a band about 5 to 6 meters high along the edge of a forest, not touching the ground. The intensity of the light was such that it illuminated the area like daylight.

Following this sighting, the next day, a circular patch of brownish, scorched grass, approximately five meters in diameter, was discovered on the ground at the location known as "Le Grand-Pré." This discovery fueled speculation about the nature of the phenomenon.

Investigation and Expert Opinions

The case attracted the attention of specialists, including those from the Centre national des études spatiales (CNES) in Toulouse, through its Service d'expertise des phénomènes de rentrées atmosphériques (SEPRA). Jean-Jacques Vélasco, a researcher from SEPRA, was tasked with a counter-inquiry to verify the witnesses' accounts and explain the phenomenon.

Initially, Vélasco gathered elements such as the color and duration of the light, its positioning, and trajectory. While ruling out a physical presence of an object, he noted that the light appeared fixed and then suddenly illuminated and faded. Similar cases had been observed, some attributed to atmospheric phenomena like a moon near the horizon or kerosene dumps. The possibility of an Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) was considered but initially downplayed due to the lack of observed movement.

Independent investigator Jean-Luc Lemaire, who works with the Centre d'études Ovni France (CEOF), also conducted his own investigation. Lemaire, who emphasizes a scientific approach and the search for natural explanations first, meticulously documented the site. He noted the presence of a specific plant, identified as *carex ovalis*, in the affected area. He observed that this plant's color changed when wet, turning a reddish-brown, which he compared to a child observing color changes in a wet pebble. Lemaire's detailed approach involved collecting soil and flora samples, measuring ground resistance and temperature, and creating detailed maps of the trace.

Renaud Leclet, in a conclusion dated April 28, 1997, suggested that the witnesses had observed something surprising but that no UFO was seen. He proposed that the alleged trace was simply a patch of *carex ovalis* and had no direct link to the light, suggesting the event could be explained by a collector illegally hunting nocturnal butterflies with a powerful projector, which may have startled the witnesses who were themselves illegally hunting frogs.

Eric Maillot, in a note, criticized J. Luc Lemaire for giving excessive publicity to the case and for making pseudo-scientific claims about the *carex* plant's color change. Maillot dismissed this as akin to a child's observation.

Media Coverage and Related Incidents

The incident garnered significant media attention, with reports appearing in "L'Ardennais," "L'Avenir du Luxembourg," "La Gazette," and "Quotidien belge Dernière Heure." The article also mentions other related phenomena, including a report of Heathrow Airport being targeted three times in four days.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine's stance appears to be one of cautious investigation, presenting both eyewitness accounts and scientific analysis. While acknowledging the possibility of unexplained phenomena, there is a clear emphasis on seeking rational and natural explanations. The articles highlight the challenges faced by investigators, the limitations of eyewitness testimony, and the sometimes controversial nature of UFO research. The role of organizations like CEOF and SEPRA in studying these events is also explored, with some questioning the transparency and methodology of official investigations, as articulated by Jean-Michel Ligeron.

The recurring theme is the tension between the unexplained and the scientific attempt to rationalize it, with the Gué d'Hossus case serving as a prime example of a phenomenon that, despite investigation, retains an element of mystery.

This issue of L'Ardennais, dated Tuesday, March 15, 1994, features a prominent cover story titled "Étranges faisceaux lumineux dans le ciel" (Strange luminous beams in the sky), with a sub-headline focusing on an OVNI (UFO) near Brûly-de-Couvin.

Article: Étranges faisceaux lumineux dans le ciel

The main article details an incident that occurred on the evening of Sunday, March 6, 1994, near the French village of Gué d'Hossus, close to Brûly-de-Couvin in Belgium. Two inhabitants, while hunting for frogs, reported seeing a strong luminous source in the sky. Frightened, they took refuge in a nearby farm and recounted their experience. The following day, they returned to the location and discovered a large, burnt circle in a meadow known as "Le Trou du Blanc." This discovery fueled speculation about a possible unidentified flying object (UFO) landing.

In response, numerous gendarmes, agents from the Eaux et Forêts (Forestry and Water department), and military personnel were dispatched to the area to establish a security perimeter and prevent public access. Investigations were initiated by the gendarmerie in Rocroi, and metal detectors were reportedly used. Specialists from the Agence Française de l'Espace (French Space Agency), affiliated with the Centre National d'Essais Spaciaux (National Center for Space Testing) in Toulouse, also arrived to conduct surveys and interview witnesses.

Despite these efforts, the origin of the luminous source and the burnt circle remained a mystery. Several hypotheses were considered, including the possibility of aircraft headlights from the Florennes base attempting to navigate in the dark. The burnt grass, forming a distinct circle, was also subject to speculation, with the unique microclimate of "Le Trou du Blanc" (where it reportedly freezes even in summer) being mentioned as a potential factor for unusual vegetation growth. However, the investigation was ongoing, and the phenomenon had not recurred since the initial sighting.

Article: A Biesme aussi...

This section reports on a separate incident in Biesme, Belgium, where Mr. and Mrs. Depret observed strange lights in the sky. The phenomenon, first noticed around 10:30-11:00 PM, involved unusual red, blue, and white lights that appeared to be moving slowly. They observed these lights for about half an hour from their terrace. The phenomenon reappeared two days later, allowing them to observe it more closely with binoculars. They described the lights as brilliant, changing colors, and forming a "cluster" with surrounding luminous traits or points. The lights appeared to be moving generally towards the south, in the direction of Oret, Florennes, or Gué d'Hossus.

Intrigued, the Deprets contacted the Florennes base, where their report was taken, but no explanations were provided. They attempted to photograph the phenomenon, but the film results were unusable. The phenomenon had not occurred again since.

The article concludes by stating that the celestial vault holds its secrets, and only scientific investigation can elucidate these mysteries. Various possibilities are mentioned, including UFOs, secret aircraft, natural phenomena, or man-made events.

Article: L'enquête marque le pas

This article, dated March 11-12, 1995, revisits the Gué d'Hossus incident, stating that three months after the observation, no concrete or definitive conclusions had been reached, and the phenomenon remained unexplained.

Jean-Jacques Velasco, a specialist from SEPRA (Service d'expertise des phénomènes de rentrées atmosphériques) at CNES in Toulouse, is quoted as stating that the two witnesses' accounts are coherent and that they are credible. He dismisses the possibility of a hoax, citing the conditions of observation (low clouds, rain) that would have limited confusion with natural or artificial lights. He also notes the exceptional duration of the observation (4-5 minutes) and the absence of any associated noise.

Regarding the burnt trace, Velasco states that his investigations do not allow him to associate it with the luminous phenomenon, nor to rule out such an association. The sensitivity of the grass to temperature could not be determined, and further investigation would be needed, possibly awaiting similar atmospheric conditions. He admits that the investigation has not yielded answers and that the phenomenon might remain unexplained.

Other testimonies are mentioned, with Jean-Michel Ligeron, an author and private investigator, declining to comment. The Ardennes branch of the Centre d'études Ovni France (CEOF) also could not explain the phenomenon. Jean-Luc Lemaire of CEOF notes that the burnt grass does not ignite but crumbles, unlike similar grass outside the affected area, but this observation also lacks a clear explanation or connection to the strange light.

Article: Les experts excluent la thèse de l'action d'un champignon

This article, dated February 11-12, 1995, reports on the findings of experts from CNES regarding the mysterious reddish trace discovered in Gué d'Hossus. The experts have concluded that the trace was not caused by a "fairy ring" or "witch's circle" mushroom phenomenon. Laboratory examination of the burnt vegetation, roots, and soil samples did not reveal the cause of the roussissement (browning) of the grass over a diameter of approximately six meters. This area was where two witnesses had previously reported seeing an intense luminous phenomenon.

The article recounts the events of March 5, 1994, when two walkers, Simon Alban and Christophe Namèche, observed a bright, white-yellow light for about ten minutes. The following day, they discovered the reddish trace, which persisted for at least three weeks despite spring growth. While an explanation involving a fungus attacking sedges was initially considered, it has now been definitively ruled out.

CNES scientists have also definitively excluded the hypothesis of a hoax involving chemical products or other means. Jean-Jacques Velasco confirmed that all elements of the two testimonies were isolated and verified, with no flaws found. He stated that the testimonies are perfectly coherent and that everything verifiable has proven to be accurate, expressing visible disturbance.

Article: Jean-Jacques Velasco: en attendant la preuve irréfutable

This section delves deeper into the perspective of Jean-Jacques Velasco, a key figure in UFO investigations in France. Velasco, who heads SEPRA at CNES, prefers the term "unidentified aerospace phenomena" over "UFOs" due to the broad nature of the category, encompassing real, natural, and imaginary elements.

Velasco presents statistics indicating that a significant portion of reported phenomena (at least a quarter of 678 reports from 1974-1978) are identifiable. He suggests that up to 30% more could be identified with more complete information. He emphasizes that his work involves scientifically eliminating all possible explanations, including illusions and wishful thinking.

He argues that the UFO dossier is more substantial than commonly believed. He poses the question of the origin of unidentified objects if they are not terrestrial in nature. Velasco also engages with the concept of time and civilization, suggesting that in a thousand years, humans might be considered "extraterrestrials" by other civilizations, implying that Earth could currently be under observation by extraterrestrial beings.

He speculates about the possibility of extraterrestrial powers establishing bases in the asteroid belt and visiting Earth. Velasco also raises the question of why extraterrestrials would manifest themselves, suggesting that the gamma rays emitted from nuclear tests after World War II might have attracted the attention of extraterrestrial intelligences unfamiliar with such natural phenomena.

Velasco acknowledges the difficulty of proving the existence of extraterrestrials scientifically, stating that "we would need to be lucky enough to stumble upon a broken probe."

Article: Similitude entre Science Fiction et Ufologie

This multi-part series explores the parallels between science fiction literature and ufology. It features illustrations and references to early science fiction works that depicted flying saucers and futuristic aerial cities, predating many modern UFO reports.

• Page 6: Discusses the book "LE FUTUR ANTERIEUR" by Christophe Canto and Odile Faliu, highlighting science fiction visions of flying cities resembling flying saucers. It references illustrations by Frank R. Paul from "Air Wonder Stories" in November and February 1929, depicting "nomadic aerocities" and "aerial cosmopolises."

• Page 7: Continues the theme with illustrations showing a post-apocalyptic Earth with flying saucers and futuristic cities. It references "La Terre, un désert" (Earth, a desert) by A. Schomburg from "Amazing Stories" (1964) and "After World's end" by Wesso from "Marvel Science Stories" (1939).

• Page 8: Focuses on "romans de gare" (pulp fiction novels) that popularized the extraterrestrial flying saucer myth. It features the cover of "Meurtres en soucoupe volante" (Murders in a flying saucer) by Pierre Tollet (1953) and "Le saint voit une soucoupe volante" (The Saint sees a flying saucer) by Leslie Charteris (1956).

• Page 9: Discusses the 1954 film "DEVIL GIRL FROM MARS," directed by David MacDonald. The plot involves a Martian woman arriving on Earth in a flying saucer, seeking human males for the survival of her race. The article details the film's narrative, including the advanced technology of the saucer and the conflict with Earthlings.

• Page 10: Covers the 1956 film "THIS ISLAND EARTH" (translated as "Les survivants de l'Infini" or "Terreur sur l'Univers"). The story involves extraterrestrials from a war-torn planet seeking human scientists to help them. It mentions a physicist who builds a communication device and is contacted by an alien named Pr. Exeter. The article draws a parallel between this scenario and the book "Enquête sur des Extra-terrestres qui sont déjà parmi nous" (Inquiry into Extraterrestrials who are already among us) by a French physicist from CNRS.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently explores unexplained aerial phenomena, UFO sightings, and related investigations. It presents witness accounts, expert opinions, and scientific analyses, while also acknowledging the speculative nature of the subject. There is a clear interest in the historical context of UFO reports and their connection to science fiction. The editorial stance appears to be one of open inquiry, presenting information and allowing readers to draw their own conclusions, while also grounding the discussion in scientific investigation and skepticism, as exemplified by the work of Jean-Jacques Velasco. The magazine also highlights the ongoing nature of such investigations and the challenges in finding definitive proof.

This issue of "FLAGRANT DELIT DE FAUX ET D'USAGE D'UFO" (Blatant Theft of Falsification and Misuse of UFOs) critically examines several prominent UFO cases, alleging they are either deliberate hoaxes or misidentifications, often perpetuated by ufological organizations.

The "Fake UFO" Phenomenon

The editorial begins by stating that it is common for ufological associations to present reports with omissions or distortions to legitimize their claims, filling publications with cases that are merely mistaken identities. However, it is less common to have concrete proof that individuals are actively creating and publishing these "fake UFO" cases. The article aims to present such a case, drawing from the files of the BIDU, an organization that transitioned from a non-profit to a for-profit entity.

The "Little Story" of the CEOF Case

The article focuses on an investigation led by Jean Luc Lemaire, the Ardennes correspondent for the CEOF (Comité d'étude des phénomènes spatiaux). Lemaire's promotion of UFOs on a local radio station (RVM) is criticized for revealing his ignorance of the subject. He claimed that UFO waves occurred every twenty years since 1954 (1974 and 1994), attributing the numerous cases in the Ardennes in 1994 to his own media promotion. Lemaire also described a typical UFO portrait, which he claimed was "made in Belgium 1990," despite the Ardennes being in France. His scientific explanations were also questioned, particularly his surprise at plants being browned in a circular area, a phenomenon normal for certain sedges.

A debate was arranged on the local radio station to discuss Lemaire's claims. However, the second broadcast, moderated by someone who admitted to not mastering the exercise, focused more on presenting two viewpoints than a true debate, with the moderator trying to avoid contentious points. Lemaire, accompanied by an uninvited guest, attempted to appear serious but mistakenly referred to UFOs as "engins" (crafts).

During a conversation off-air, the author presented Lemaire with an investigation published by the CEOF, questioning how the person training CEOF investigators, identified as M. Voarino, could not recognize an obvious misidentification of the moon. Lemaire responded that he was not interested in cases he hadn't investigated himself and that the moon's position didn't disprove a misidentification. The radio host then changed the subject.

The Auditor's Testimony

One auditor, Monsieur Rougée, called in to report seeing a circle of luminous discs rotating in the sky in January 1994, a common misidentification today. Rougée was aware of the source of the projected lights. To test the debaters, he deliberately omitted the end of his observation, which led him near a discotheque named "La Fiesta" in Harcy. During the broadcast, the author did not offer an explanation, wanting to see how the CEOF would handle it.

Following the broadcast in November 1994, Lemaire sent Rougée a questionnaire that seemed designed to influence his testimony rather than gather objective data. Rougée filled out the questionnaire in the author's presence and concluded that he agreed with Eric Maillot's assessment: a misidentification due to a discotheque's light show. The author had a phone conversation with Lemaire, reminding him of his conclusion. Lemaire asked if the author had verified the case, to which the author replied no, citing the characteristic narrative and the presence of the discotheque. The author suspected Lemaire's deliberate omission was to encourage him to investigate and prove the author wrong, leading him to the same conclusion.

A UFO Disintegrates a Discotheque?

By late 1994, the CEOF had an explanation for the case, accepted by the witness. The author bet that the case would still be presented as a UFO sighting by ufologists, noting that ufological associations often act like sects, increasing their fervor when their beliefs are challenged. He predicted a 95% chance of winning his bet.

In early 1996, the author found a BIDU list from May 1995 that categorized this case as a UFO without explanation. In June, he saw a BIDU investigation summary dated November 30, 1994. This summary, he learned, stated that there was no discotheque between Harcy and Rimogne, despite M. Rougée having seen one that still existed and operated. The CEOF and BIDU, it seemed, had made the establishment disappear into "another dimension" where their UFOs prospered, thus ceasing to believe what the witness had seen. This demonstrated a flexible application of their principles.

In September, during a phone call about a possible atmospheric reentry on August 1, 1996, the author informed Lemaire of the BIDU document's conclusion. Lemaire was neither surprised nor indignant, stating he was "not responsible for what the BIDU does." When asked if he shared the BIDU's conclusion, Lemaire surprisingly replied that it was a "sky-tracker with a 95% probability" and that the file was "protected" due to an internal CEOF decision to prevent misuse. The author questions who, CEOF or BIDU, omitted or transformed the conclusion.

He notes that there remains a 5% mystery in this case, which was 95% a misidentification. The witness was never informed of the CEOF's conclusions, despite Lemaire having the opportunity to speak with him again. Furthermore, the case remained listed as a UFO in the April 1997 BIDU list, with Lemaire continuing to report "bogus UFOs." The author concludes by referencing "X-Files" and "CIA scams," suggesting the existence of "BIDU scams" and "CEOF dossiers," and advises readers not to seek UFO truth there, as it is "elsewhere," like Agent Mulder would say.

The Witness's Version

Jean Luc Rougée provides his testimony, certifying the facts. He explains that after learning of E. Maillot's radio debate with J. Luc Lemaire of the CEOF, he decided to testify about a real observation made in January 1994. To test the specialists' identification capabilities, he deliberately omitted the end of his account. He was intrigued by the nature of what he saw and sought to understand the observed lights himself. He found the explanation at the nearby discotheque "La Fiesta" in Harcy, whose projectors illuminated the clouds with multiple mobile lights. Lemaire sent him a questionnaire, which Rougée answered, stating that the explanation of discotheque projectors seemed plausible. E. Maillot warned him that this might provoke the opposite reaction, favoring the UFO explanation. To Rougée's surprise, a year later, Maillot showed him a BIDU document that described his observation as a UFO, distorting his testimony. Rougée affirms that he saw projectors from the Fiesta discotheque on that January night in 1994.

The Case of Le Malmont

This section details the case of Le Malmont, involving Gabriel Demogue and his friend. On the night of October 19, 1973, they observed an orange light in the sky near Draguignan (Var). After the young girl became scared, they descended and met an acquaintance interested in UFOs. A group of four enthusiasts went to the site and observed a white light in the vegetation, and the orientation table overheating. They heard breaking branches and saw a red light approaching, which turned out to be a large, reddish silhouette descending a path, accompanied by a modulated whistling sound. One of their cars was violently shaken, causing panic. They then saw three large, helmeted silhouettes before speeding away. They also reported seeing red legs crossing their path.

Sources for this case include "OVNI: le ler dossier complet des rencontres rapprochées en France" by Michel Figuet and Jean-Louis Ruchon, and "OVNI, Dimension autre" by Lob and Gigi. A summary of an investigation by M.J. Chasseigne from October 29, 1973, is also referenced.

The Aftermath

Michel Figuet, an investigator and president of SERPAN, met one of the witnesses in 1977, who was regularly participating in sky surveillance with friends and had made several observations of luminous phenomena. In 1985, Figuet met Gabriel Demogue, who was then a gendarme. Demogue revealed that the "Le Malmont" case was a hoax orchestrated with two friends. They had wrapped themselves in red bandanas, cut from a flag, and used a lamp to simulate the phenomenon, intending to play a prank on UFO believers. Demogue explained the overheating of the orientation table as residual heat from the day's sun and the shaking of vehicles as them deliberately shaking the cars.

Remarks

The article notes that the robot portraits of "giants" in the Lob and Gigi comic strip accurately depicted beings surrounded by bandanas, resembling mummies with flashlights. The author highlights the irony that the main instigator of this hoax later became a gendarme.

Recreation: Riddles of Epinal Imagery

This section, titled "RECREATION," presents three visual riddles in homage to the bicentennial of Epinal imagery (1796-1996). The riddles encourage viewers to find hidden elements by turning the images. The first riddle is "Find the abduction!" featuring an alien figure. The second is "Help these soldiers capture the chupacabras!" showing soldiers in a landscape. The third asks, "Have you seen the Yeti?" with a mountainous landscape and hikers.

St-Vallier-de-Thiey (06) - January 07, 1974: A Squadron of Saucers (or Helicopters) ... Vanishing in Smoke!

This article, written by Gilles Munsch with contributions from Eric Maillot, Raoul Robé, and Christine Zwygart, discusses the St-Vallier case. The author, initially more interested in astronomy than ufology in early 1974, became intrigued by a UFO cover story in "Ciel & Espace." This event marked the beginning of his extensive research into UFOs.

The Case of St-Vallier

The St-Vallier case is described as a prominent "hit parade" case in French ufology, despite its lack of extraordinary features compared to other observations. The author suggests that such cases would be approached differently today than in the 1970s.

The case's prominence is attributed to three factors:

1. Photographs: The witness took a series of photographs, which at a time when "fakes" were not easily produced, were considered strong evidence.
2. Media Attention: The witness's father, a journalist, immediately shared the photos with "France-Presse," leading to international media coverage.
3. "UFO Wave": The observation occurred during a period of significant UFO reports in 1974, a year known for a major UFO wave in France.

The article in "Ciel & Espace" detailed the observation, making it unnecessary to repeat here.

First Comments

Pierre Bourge's introduction is described as cautious and critical of the media's enthusiasm for "UFOs." While acknowledging that all honest observations should be examined, the author notes that the astronomical community did not particularly excel in analyzing this particular "good faith" observation.

The author expresses his observation that amateur astronomers often show interest in UFOs but become dogmatic when asked to debate them, dismissing them as "follies and balderdash." He attributes this reaction to the "folkloric" media coverage, which leads them to associate UFOs solely with "extraterrestrial vehicles," thus excluding the subject from scientific inquiry.

The interview with Jacques Bergier is cited as an example of this paradox, where he provides unscientific assertions, lies, prejudices, and speculations, along with advertisements for his books. The author dismisses this as entertainment for "little astronomers in short pants."

Following this, another author offers a more reasonable perspective on hypothetical extraterrestrial civilizations and contact possibilities. Jacques Bergier's explanation for the St-Vallier observation is presented as "reflections of solar discs in water droplets," which the author finds questionable, especially since Bergier dismisses the argument of a low sun without considering the azimuths. The author concludes that this explanation, offered as the first for the young astronomer's observation, is somewhat perplexing, but that other explanations will follow.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue strongly criticizes the ufological community for its lack of rigor, its tendency to promote unsubstantiated claims, and its susceptibility to hoaxes and misidentifications. The editorial stance is one of skepticism towards many UFO reports, advocating for critical analysis and a scientific approach, while exposing what it terms "fake UFOs" and the manipulation of information by certain organizations and individuals. The publication highlights the role of media in sensationalizing UFO phenomena and questions the credibility of some prominent figures in ufology. The recurring theme is the debunking of specific cases and the broader critique of how UFO phenomena are investigated and presented to the public.

This issue of 'OVNI' (issue 41) focuses on the enigmatic St-Vallier UFO case, exploring witness testimony, photographic evidence, and potential explanations, particularly military exercises. The magazine also touches upon other UFO-related investigations and critiques the approaches of various ufological groups and official bodies.

Il est beau mon OVNI !

The article begins by discussing the St-Vallier UFO case, which gained attention through enigmatic photos. It notes that the photos were featured in a book by 'Monsieur OVNI' and suggests that a telescope might have been used, although the author clarifies that the telescope's use was limited to supporting the camera, and the witness actually leaned on a balcony railing. The witness's visual observation with the instrument refined the description of the phenomenon, with a 'strong mistral' being mentioned. The author expresses skepticism about the journalistic approach to ufology, suggesting it often prioritizes commercial success over genuine discovery.

Dieu que le monde est petit!

This section recounts an experience in July 1991 in England, where the author and Thierry Pinvidic were investigating 'Corn-Circles'. During a night near Devizes, they witnessed an unusual luminous spectacle in the southern sky, which lasted about twenty minutes. This event is presented as an 'apéritif haut en couleurs' before the author hints at a connection to the St-Vallier case.

Cherchez et vous trouverez!

The narrative shifts to the summer of 1992, with the authors returning to England for their research. In February 1993, while reviewing old case files with Eric Maillot, they rediscovered a report from 1974 concerning an observation in the Draguignan region. This report, from the ADEPS investigation, revealed that the St-Vallier observation by Didier Basset was not isolated, a fact unknown even to Basset himself until August 1996.

Ufologue, mon ami !

This section discusses the nature of private ufologists, acknowledging their potential criticisms but highlighting their dedication to field research and witness encounters. It contrasts their hands-on approach with mere judgment or interpretation. The article then focuses on the ADEPS investigation from 1974 into an observation on January 7, 1974, in the Draguignan region. This investigation, summarized by Jean Chasseigne, is presented as crucial because it linked the St-Vallier photos to other independent sightings, suggesting a common phenomenon.

• The author then provides commentary on M. Chasseigne's report:
• The testimonies are rich in descriptive details, some of which strongly support the interpretation.
• Divergences in descriptions are noted, attributed to various factors and the difficulty of translating unusual visual experiences into words.
• Two witnesses independently suggested military exercises or flares from the Canjuers camp as an explanation, though investigators were not convinced.
• One witness described a shape strongly resembling a flying saucer.
• M. Chasseigne's attempts to contact the photographer of the famous St-Vallier photos were unsuccessful.
• The investigator's conclusion placing the phenomenon above the Nord-Est area of the Canjuers camp is deemed coherent.
• The author criticizes the analysis of descriptive discrepancies, suggesting it's often due to the difficulty of translating visual perception into language.
• The timing of the observations, between 8:30 PM and 9:30 PM, suggests different phases of the phenomenon were observed.
• An error in M. Chasseigne's calculation of magnetic declination is pointed out, which would alter the phenomenon's location.

Conclusion and Critique of Chasseigne's Work

Despite the noted error, M. Chasseigne is commended for his work. The main criticism is that he may not have fully valued certain witness indications. The author suggests that the ufological context of the time, personal convictions, and a lack of perspective might have prevented Chasseigne from discovering a more obvious solution. The article posits that ufologists often function more as chroniclers than analysts.

LDLN aussi :

This section highlights a weakness in private ufology: the lack of global coherence in actions and information sharing. It mentions that interesting information is often scattered in ephemeral publications. The article notes that a summary of an investigation into an observation above Canjuers on January 7, 1974, was found in issue N° 167 of the review 'Lumières Dans La Nuit', which complements Chasseigne's work.

OVNIS l'avis des astronomes.

This part discusses an article from 'Ciel & Espace' (N° 268, April 1992) that features a debate on UFOs among scientists. It highlights the activities of SEPRA (formerly GEPAN) and its director, described as a 'Sherlock Holmes' of UFOs. The article contrasts SEPRA's scientific methodology with that of 'private groups'. While acknowledging some common ground, the authors express reservations about SEPRA's mission and methodology. Two examples from the article are discussed:
1. The 'fétiche' case of GEPAN-SEPRA, which the authors believe has been presented with a 'serious caveat' regarding its rigor.
2. The St-Vallier case, where one of the photos is shown with attenuated central reflections. The accompanying commentary suggests the witness was misled by a formation of helicopters. The authors conclude that if this explanation is not Pierre Kohler's or the editorial team's, then its unaddressed nature implies M. Vélasco's agreement.

The Phenomenon Filmed in England

This section reveals that the luminous phenomenon filmed in England corresponds to a nocturnal exercise at the military camp near Devizes, Wiltshire. The exercise involved firing illuminating flares in successive bursts to light up the operational area, lasting about half an hour. The flares, slowed by parachutes, created a spectacle visible for dozens of kilometers. The video footage shows the dynamic nature of the phenomenon, with incandescent 'boules' appearing to form geometric shapes. The duration of each flare's illumination is about 45 seconds, and the exercise requires around 200 projectiles. The article notes that the 'strong mistral' mentioned in the St-Vallier case might have attenuated the sound of the flares, unlike in the English observation.

• Details observable from the video include:
• Combustion residues and smoke, which are usually invisible but can be illuminated by nearby smoke generators.
• The report from Chasseigne mentions this detail, observed by witness N° 4.
• Some projectiles exhibit malfunctions, with lights burning out prematurely or falling faster, possibly due to parachute issues.
• The general movement of the lights is from top to bottom due to gravity, with a slow but constant descent.

Gilles Munsch offers to send a copy of the video to interested individuals.

New Investigations and Findings

The article then details further investigations into the St-Vallier case, including a visit to the witness's family home. The authors discuss their hypothesis that the phenomenon was related to military flares from the Canjuers camp. They conducted measurements and took photographs at the observation site. The witness, M. Basset, confirmed that the telescope was used for visual observation only, not for photography. He also mentioned the presence of a strong mistral. The discussion revealed that the photos were taken by leaning on the balcony railing. M. Basset explained that his father shared the negatives with AFP for informational purposes, hoping for clarification, not profit. He also noted that the original negatives were lost, making quality prints difficult to obtain. He agreed with the assessment that the reflections on the photos might be due to a UV filter.

M. Basset also recounted numerous solicitations from journalists and ufologists, including Jean-Claude Bourret, who suggested an interpretation involving 'mother ships' deploying 'exploratory saucers'. M. Basset insisted on sticking to the observed facts and avoiding speculative interpretations, which eventually led to a calmer period.

Intrigued by M. Basset's perspective, the author inquired with a friend, a mayor and former deputy, about any large-scale military events that might explain the phenomenon. The response was negative, which M. Basset found contradictory to the proposed flare hypothesis.

Other Observation Sites

The article describes visits to other sites related to the ADEPS investigation, including locations near Le Thoronnet, Le Luc, and Vidauban, where witnesses had reported similar phenomena. These investigations involved taking measurements and photographs, and in some cases, corroborating the direction of observation towards the Canjuers camp.

Further investigations led the authors to Trans-en-Provence and then to Bagnols-en-Forêt, where they measured azimuts related to Draguignan and Canjuers. They concluded that witnesses at various locations likely observed the same phenomenon, situated vertically above the eastern region of the Canjuers Camp.

New Expectations

Upon returning, the author developed photos and copied the England video. He continued correspondence with Mr. Basset, seeking his opinion on the video and sending additional documents. Despite persistent efforts, a response regarding the video was delayed, and a subsequent letter remained unanswered. The author also sent a letter to the Fayence-Tourettes gliding center seeking meteorological information, but received no reply. Additionally, a letter was sent to a well-known astronomer, but again, no response was received, leaving the possibility of further information open.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the investigation of specific UFO cases, particularly the St-Vallier incident, and the exploration of potential explanations, with a strong emphasis on military exercises involving flares. The magazine adopts a critical stance towards sensationalism in ufology and questions the methodologies of both private investigators and official organizations like GEPAN/SEPRA. There is a consistent effort to ground the analysis in factual evidence, witness testimony, and logical deduction, while acknowledging the limitations and challenges of such investigations. The editorial stance appears to favor a rational, evidence-based approach, seeking to demystify UFO phenomena by identifying conventional explanations where possible, but also leaving room for the genuinely unexplained.

This issue of CIEL ET ESPACE, number 139, published in March-April 1974, is dedicated to the phenomenon of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), under the cover title "LES "OVNI"...". The magazine presents a comprehensive investigation into various sightings, blending witness testimonies, technical analyses, and speculative discussions about extraterrestrial civilizations.

The St-Vallier Case and English Video

The issue begins by analyzing the St-Vallier case, comparing witness descriptions with a video recorded in England on January 7, 1974. The lights observed in the sky are described as bright, yellow-orange "balls" that appeared and disappeared, sometimes in "salves." The descent and drift of these lights are detailed, with attempts to reconstruct the terrain illuminated by them. The video from England is noted to be a significant objective document, confirming aspects of the French testimonies. Challenges in interpreting the video, such as the apparent ascent of certain "balls," are discussed, with possible explanations including updrafts, perspective effects, or a combination of both. The lack of audible sound during observations is also noted, consistent with other reports.

Atmospheric diffusion is mentioned as a factor that can artificially amplify the apparent size of luminous sources in video recordings and photographs. The article highlights that for the St-Vallier photographs, the angular size of the lights, estimated by a witness using a telescope, was about one minute of arc, significantly smaller than the moon. Contradictions in the observed drift direction are addressed, suggesting they can be explained by perspective effects related to the relative positions of witnesses and phenomena. The presence of strong mistral winds is noted as consistent with a forced drift of the projectiles. The article points out potential confusion in witness accounts due to the investigator's unconscious bias against the idea of flares, leading to misinterpretations of movement.

Comparative Observations: 07.01.1974 vs. 23.07.1991

A comparative table details observations from January 7, 1974, and July 23, 1991. The 1974 observation involved multiple luminous points described as "balls," yellow-orange in color, with a slow descent and lateral drift, lasting about 20 minutes per phase. The 1991 observation, also involving multiple lights, noted a drift to the left and a longer visibility of individual "balls" (around 45 seconds). Both observations noted multiple "salves" and the impression of lights appearing to replace each other. Geographically, the 1974 observation was linked to the Canjuers camp area, while the 1991 observation was associated with the Devizes area.

Technical Considerations and Photo Analysis

The article discusses the difficulties in obtaining high-quality prints from Didier Basset's photographs, which limits their use for verification calculations. The lack of information regarding the camera, film, and exposure times makes detailed expertise challenging. If the objects were indeed illuminating flares, their upward trajectory to the right would imply a descending trajectory to the left, consistent with a North-South wind component, possibly a mistral. The author expresses frustration with the lack of access to military authorities for further investigation.

Epilogue and Conclusion

After years of research, the authors conclude that the St-Vallier case, along with associated peripheral observations, likely resulted from a misinterpretation of a military exercise involving luminous objects projected from the ground and descending by parachute. This operation, unusual for the desert area of Canjuers, may have confused witnesses unfamiliar with such manifestations. The article acknowledges that while a rational explanation is proposed, some information may still be missing. The authors remain open to reasoned discussion to further advance understanding.

They anticipate criticism from the ufological community, given their reputation as "debunkers," but state that their focus is on genuine research rather than engaging in disputes.

Other Sightings and Perspectives

The issue also includes a section on other reported UFO sightings from various French regions, including the Yvelines, Haute-Marne, and Aude. These reports describe objects with varied characteristics, such as bright lights, circular or cigar shapes, and unusual movements.

Jean Lacroux on the Metaphysics of UFOs

Jean Lacroux, vice-president of the AFA, offers a perspective on UFOs, questioning whether humanity is alone in the universe and if more advanced extraterrestrial civilizations exist. He suggests that the fascination with UFOs might stem from a subconscious mystical inclination or a desire for escapism from the anxieties of modern life. He posits that UFOs could represent a form of "new magic" or a way to cope with an incomprehensible universe, serving as a psychological necessity in a troubled era.

Pierre Bourge on UFOs and Astronomy

Pierre Bourge discusses the confusion between astronomical phenomena and UFO reports. He notes that the comet Kohoutek generated public interest in the sky, leading many to observe normal celestial and atmospheric events like Venus, artificial satellites, meteors, and balloons, which were then misidentified as UFOs. Bourge criticizes sensationalist press articles that lack essential details, making verification impossible and casting a general discredit on the subject. He emphasizes that while some unknown phenomena might exist, many reported UFOs are likely misidentified natural occurrences. He advocates for careful examination of all credible observations.

"The Concorde" Object: A Cloud?

An article reports on an object photographed aboard Concorde during a solar eclipse in 1973. The most probable explanation offered is a stratospheric or mesospheric cloud created by a meteor from the Beta Taurides swarm, linked to the Encke comet. This identification is supported by geometric conditions and the trajectory of the swarm.

Jacques Bergier's Skeptical View

In an interview, Jacques Bergier expresses skepticism towards most UFO descriptions, suggesting they are often invented or subjective experiences, possibly linked to epilepsy. He proposes a "three-number rule," where claims made in a ufological magazine tend to be retracted or downplayed three issues later. While believing in extraterrestrial intervention in Earth's history, he dismisses the idea of flying saucers.

The Question of Extraterrestrial Civilizations

François Pasqualini explores the possibility of extraterrestrial civilizations. He argues that it would be arrogant to assume Earth is the only planet harboring life, given the vastness of the universe. He considers the potential for vastly superior civilizations and the immense challenges of communication, suggesting that direct thought transmission might be a possibility for such advanced beings. He acknowledges the skepticism arising from past scientific theories that proved false, but maintains that the search for extraterrestrial life and communication should continue.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the investigation of UFO phenomena, the critical analysis of witness testimonies, and the exploration of potential explanations, from mundane misidentifications to the possibility of advanced extraterrestrial intelligence. The editorial stance appears to be one of cautious inquiry, encouraging rigorous investigation and rational explanations while remaining open to the possibility of genuinely unexplained events. The magazine aims to provide a platform for detailed reporting and reasoned debate on a subject that continues to fascinate the public.

This issue of L'Est Républicain: Magazine du Dimanche, dated May 7, 1989, features several articles related to UFO phenomena. The cover story, "Ovnis observés à Paris et en Belgique" (UFOs observed in Paris and Belgium), discusses sightings from September 24, 1986, and the possibility of them being space debris. The magazine also includes "Annexe II" and "Annexe III" which appear to be reproductions of other articles and book covers related to UFOs, including a piece on Jean-Claude Bourret's book "La nouvelle vague des soucoupes volantes" (The new wave of flying saucers).

Ovnis observés à Paris et en Belgique

This article reports on unidentified flying objects (UFOs) observed over Paris and Belgium on September 24, 1986, between 7:25 and 7:40 AM. Specialists suggest these luminous objects might be fragments of Soviet space launchers re-entering the atmosphere, a phenomenon expected around mid-September.

L'extraterrestre risque d'être rencontré

This section details the physical characteristics of an average extraterrestrial as described by Canadian journalist François Bourbeau during a UFO conference in Lyon. Bourbeau, based on over a decade of observations and hundreds of testimonies from Quebec, posits that an average extraterrestrial would be 1.13 meters tall, weigh about 24 kilos, have grey skin, yellow eyes with feline pupils, and wear a black uniform. The article also mentions the Roswell crash of 1947 as discussed by American researcher William Moore and the ongoing search for rational explanations for aerial phenomena.

Patrick Chassagneux, a national meteorology engineer, explains natural phenomena like Bishop's Ring, emphasizing that many sky lights have rational explanations. Jean-Claude Ribes, director of the Lyon Astronomical Observatory, notes a shift from polarized debates to a more rational approach in UFO research.

Ovnis: un "secret" mieux gardé que la bombe H

This article, likely a review or excerpt from Jean Sider's book "Top Secret: Ces ovnis qui font peur," discusses the history of UFOs and a supposed "cover-up" by American authorities since 1947. It highlights the Roswell crash as a pivotal event, where initial press reports of a "flying saucer" crash were quickly suppressed and officially explained as a weather balloon. The article suggests that information regarding UFOs was treated with a higher level of secrecy than that surrounding the atomic bomb.

It also touches upon the phenomenon of cattle mutilations, another aspect of UFO lore that the author claims has been subject to official disinformation.

Annexe III - Livre de J-Claude Bourret - Couverture & page 80 bis

This section presents the cover of Jean-Claude Bourret's book "La nouvelle vague des soucoupes volantes" and a page detailing a specific UFO sighting. The photo, published in Paris-Match, was taken on January 7, 1974, at 8:45 PM in Saint-Vallier-de-Thiey, France. The witness, Didier B., an amateur astronomer, described six luminous spheres, appearing as yellow disks, moving slowly above the hills. He managed to capture five photographs, two of which are considered correct.

Annexe IV - Article de la revue de l'ADEPS

This extensive section details a series of UFO sightings that occurred on the night of January 7, 1974, involving multiple witnesses in the Var region of France. The article, based on an investigation by J. Chasseigne, analyzes testimonies from various individuals (Témoins n°1 to n°8) who observed luminous objects.

Key details from the testimonies include:

• January 7, 1974, around 8:30 PM: Witness Adrien F. (Témoin n°1) observed four luminous orange-red balls above the hills near Trans en Provence. The objects exhibited unusual behavior, including one disappearing and another appearing, and forming a V-shape.
• Later that evening (around 8:55 PM): Adrien F. and his son Christian (Témoin n°2) observed six luminous yellow balls with fuzzy contours, described as crown-shaped with different colorations.
• Witness n°3 (Monsieur A.) observed five orange, brilliant luminous objects in a geometric formation near Trans en Provence, estimating their altitude at 500m and distance at 15km. He noted three luminous antennas on one sphere.
• Witnesses n°4 (Madame C. and family) saw six luminous objects moving slowly towards Draguignan, described as very clear and appearing above the hills. One object reportedly emitted a smoke trail.
• Witnesses n°5 (Monsieur and Madame Joseph C.) observed seven luminous circular forms above Draguignan or Canjuers, appearing to move from bottom to top and right to left, or to dim and relight.
• Witness n°6 (Monsieur D.) observed several luminous forms in the direction of Draguignan, initially thinking they were flares from the Canjuers military camp.
• Witness n°7 (Monsieur Jean B.) observed seven luminous forms with intense orange light, which moved up and down before rejoining the formation.
• Witness n°8 (an amateur astronomer) took several photos of luminous objects on January 7, 1974, at 8:45 PM in St Vallier de Thiey, described as yellow disks.

The article attempts to reconcile the various descriptions, noting that the objects were seen in geometric formations and exhibited organized behavior. The location of the phenomenon is estimated to be on the mountains south of Col de la Glacière, in a deserted region.

Additional information:

• The meteorological conditions on the night of January 7, 1974, included strong mistral winds, light clouds, and a prominent moon.
• The article includes a map showing the locations of the witnesses and the observed phenomena.
• A quote from M. J. Lacroux of the AFA is included, suggesting UFOs represent a necessary escape from the harshness of modern life.

Annexe V - Revue "Lumières dans la Nuit"

This section presents an article from the review "Lumières dans la Nuit" (Lights in the Night), dated August/September 1977, titled "AU-DESSUS DU PLATEAU DE CANJUERS" (Above the Canjuers Plateau). It details a case observed on January 7, 1974, by Marius Mullerke.

Mullerke, a farmer, observed bright lights in the northeast direction from his home. Using binoculars from a higher vantage point, he witnessed extraordinary phenomena behind the hills of Canjuers. He described seeing objects that transformed into spheres, appearing as a small light followed by a large curtain of light. These then became luminous spheres, the size of a small moon, appearing one after another. He witnessed this for about fifteen minutes, seeing possibly 20 to 30 such objects, or perhaps just six, in a formation that moved south-west and then south before disappearing.

Remarkable annexes to this observation include:

• On the afternoon of January 7, electrical appliances at the witness's home and a neighbor's home experienced malfunctions.
• Monsieur Aubert, an elderly neighbor, was awakened by a very loud, rapid whistling sound passing over the house during the night.
• Mullerke wrote to the Var prefecture for clarification but received no response.
• A reporter from "Var matin république" investigated and found no record of military or civilian aircraft in the area that night.

The article concludes by noting that Mullerke likely witnessed a phenomenon similar to the one photographed in Saint-Vallier-de-Thiey on the same date.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are UFO sightings, witness testimonies, and the potential for government cover-ups and disinformation. The magazine presents a range of perspectives, from scientific explanations of natural phenomena to detailed accounts of unexplained aerial events. The editorial stance appears to be one of open inquiry into UFO phenomena, presenting evidence and witness accounts while acknowledging the need for rational analysis and investigation. There is a clear interest in historical cases like Roswell and contemporary sightings, suggesting a belief that UFOs are a significant and persistent phenomenon worthy of study.

This issue of Ciel & Espace, dated April 1992, features a dossier titled "OVNIS l'avis des astronomes" (UFOs: The Astronomers' Opinion), presented in three parts, with this article being the second part covering pages 32 and 33. The main cover headline is "LES ENQUÊTEURS DU CIEL" (The Sky Investigators), focusing on Toulouse and the scientific approach to studying UFO phenomena.

The Sky Investigators of Toulouse: The Sepra

The article, written by Pierre Kohler, introduces the Sepra (Service d'expertise des phénomènes et des rentrées atmosphériques), a unique service within the CNES (Centre National d'Études Spatiales) in Toulouse. Sepra's mission is to methodically analyze witness testimonies of unusual aerial phenomena, distinguishing itself from private UFO organizations by its scientific rigor and reliance on official sources.

The service originated in 1976 when Claude Poher convinced Hubert Curien, then president of CNES, of the need for an official body to study UFOs. The Gepan (Groupement d'étude des phénomènes aérospatiaux non identifiés) was established on May 1, 1977, with Poher as its first director. He was later succeeded by Alain Esterle, and then by Jean-Jacques Velasco, who became director when Gepan evolved into Sepra in 1989.

Sepra's methodology emphasizes that a UFO testimony cannot be considered independently of its author. It requires analyzing the phenomenon, the witness's personality, and the observation's circumstances as an inseparable whole. This involves specific research in the psychology of perception. The core challenge lies in the difficulty of obtaining objective, measurable data, as most information comes from witness accounts.

Sepra distinguishes itself by not aiming to publish reports like past US commissions (Project Blue Book, etc.). Instead, its goal is to examine observations to identify patterns and better understand the phenomenon. To achieve this, Sepra standardizes information collection, primarily through official channels such as the gendarmerie, the air force, meteorological services, and air traffic control. Since 1974, the gendarmerie has used a standardized form to record UFO observations, transmitting around 200 new cases annually to Sepra.

Crucially, Sepra emphasizes the importance of defining protocols, including recording meteorological and astronomical data at the time of observation. The article notes that multiple witnesses to the same event can provide widely varying details, sometimes distinguishing between objective descriptions and subjective interpretations or 'mental projections'.

Historical Context and Case Analysis

The article provides a brief historical overview of UFO sightings, mentioning ancient accounts and significant waves of sightings in the US in 1897 and 1947. It recounts the famous Kenneth Arnold sighting in 1947, which popularized the term "flying saucer." It also touches upon early official investigations like Project Sign and the Mantell case, where pilot Thomas Mantell crashed after pursuing a UFO, with official explanations suggesting high-altitude flight or misidentification of Venus.

Sepra's statistical analysis, initiated in 1978 with 678 reports, categorized observations into four main groups: clearly identified phenomena (astronomical, meteorological, technological), probably identified but with insufficient data (25% of cases), unidentifiable due to lack of data (35%), and phenomena of currently impossible nature to determine (38%). Exceptional cases, like ground traces, are also investigated.

The article highlights the "Trans-en-Provence" case from January 8, 1981, as particularly striking. A witness reported a metallic object landing and leaving a circular imprint on the ground. Analysis revealed black streaks with iron oxide particles and premature aging of surrounding vegetation, suggesting a material object and a non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. Military authorities denied involvement, leaving the case as one of Sepra's unexplained phenomena.

Regarding the extraterrestrial hypothesis, Sepra acknowledges it as a possibility but not a primary conclusion, stating that it's one hypothesis among others and cannot be directly equated with unexplained cases. This stance contrasts with some private UFO organizations that proclaim imminent alien contact.

Photo Analysis and Skepticism

The article includes a section titled "ERREUR..." (ERROR...) which debunks a specific UFO photo published in Ciel & Espace in March 1974. The photo, taken by Didier Basset in St Vallier-de-Thiey, showed six luminous objects. While initially unexplained and even linked to similar sightings, it was later identified as helicopters flying in formation with their lights on. Jean-Jacques Velasco emphasizes that photos are not proof in themselves but elements for study, and many lack the necessary technical details (date, time, location, equipment) for scientific analysis.

Reader Correspondence and Debates

Several reader letters are included, showcasing ongoing discussions and debates surrounding UFO phenomena and scientific interpretation:

• Joseph Jaoven questions an article about the Big Bang, specifically a statement about the universe's origin and time/space measurements, arguing for a more cautious approach.
• J. Rechain proposes a cyclical model of the universe, suggesting that the current expansion might lead to a future collapse and rebirth.
• Didier Basset responds to the helicopter explanation for his 1974 photo, asserting that his observation was not of helicopters and that official inquiries found no such activity at the time, leaving the case unexplained.
• Serge Besson expresses gratitude for an article about amateur astronomer Olivier Sauzereau, inspired by the photos to pursue his own astronomical observations.

Technical Annexes

The issue includes several annexes:

• Annexe VII: A section from a later article (September 1992) titled "Télescopages" discussing a reader's critique of an article on the Big Bang and another reader's response regarding the 1974 UFO photo, reiterating skepticism about the helicopter explanation.
• Annexe VIII: A diagram by Eric Maillot analyzing "streaks" in photos, suggesting a symmetrical pattern related to the lens's optical axis and possible movement of lights.
• Annexe IX: A letter from G. MUNSCH to Didier BASSET dated March 9, 1993, requesting detailed information about his 1974 observation and photographs, expressing skepticism about the helicopter explanation and proposing his own rational explanation.
• Annexe X: A follow-up letter from G. MUNSCH to Didier BASSET dated November 27, 1993, inquiring about the lack of response to his previous request.
• Annexe XI: A response from the Chef d'Etat Major of the Vème Région Militaire to Michel Figuet, dated January 8, 1988, stating that it is impossible to determine if illuminating shells were fired on January 7, 1924, near Camp de Canjuers, and deeming it improbable due to the nature of such munitions and the lack of suitable firing ranges.
• Annexe XII & XIII: Photographs taken in 1997 and 1978 at the locations related to UFO sightings, showing the villas and observation fields, comparing them to earlier photos.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the scientific investigation of UFOs, the challenges of evidence analysis, the distinction between scientific inquiry and speculative theories, and the historical context of UFO sightings. The editorial stance clearly favors a rigorous, evidence-based approach, emphasizing the need for verifiable data and caution against premature conclusions or pseudoscientific explanations. The magazine promotes the work of official scientific bodies like Sepra while acknowledging the public's fascination with the unexplained.

This document comprises several annexes (XIV to XIX) from a publication, likely a ufological bulletin or journal, detailing investigations and travel related to UFO phenomena. The primary focus is on a trip undertaken from August 17 to 25, 1996, by Gilles MUNSCH and two companions in the South of France. The annexes include photographs, correspondence, and analytical documents related to specific UFO cases.

Annex XIV: Photographs at the Entrance of Vidauban (83) - 22.08.1996

This annex presents two photographs taken at the entrance of Vidauban, France, on August 22, 1996. Photo 1 shows a straight road from which witnesses (N°4 of the Chasseigne report) observed a phenomenon on the North-East horizon, above a second mountain range (Camp de Canjuers). Photo 2 offers another view of the site from the opposite side of the road, at an azimuth of approximately 40°/NM.

Annex XV: Photographs at Trans-en-Provence (83) - 22.08.1997

This annex contains photographs taken on August 22, 1997, at Trans-en-Provence, France. Photo 1 depicts the old road leading to Trans-en-Provence in 1974, highlighting the 'grand virage' from where witnesses N°1 (Chasseigne report) began their observation. Photo 2 shows the exit of the 'grand virage' with a view of the new road and, in the distance to the North-East, the reliefs (Canjuers) above which lights were situated.

Annex XVI: Third letter to the main witness - Gilles MUNSCH to Mr Didier BASSET - 28.08.1996

This letter from Gilles MUNSCH to Mr. Didier BASSET, dated August 28, 1996, transmits a copy of a video document for comparison with the luminous phenomenon observed by BASSET in 1974. MUNSCH explains that the video, filmed in England, is a work document and not intended for diffusion. He notes that the comments are made 'live' and provide characteristics of the phenomenon, such as the absence of perceived noise and the presence of 'fumerolles'. He clarifies that the 'Crozia type UFO' expression refers to video deformations that transform a point of light into a 'notched disk' during zoom operations. He also explains that the perceived humming sound is from an unsuccessful attempt to film with a Super-8 camera, and that the line of lights corresponds to street lamps, with the 'luminous balls' movements being amplified by the zoom. MUNSCH requests BASSET's opinion on whether the video could correspond to his 1974 observation and asks for a copy of J-C Bourret's 1974 'Pas de panique' recordings and any quality prints of BASSET's photos. He assures that all copying costs will be covered.

Annex XVII: Fourth letter to the main witness - CNEGU to M. & Mme Didier BASSET - 29.10.1996

This letter from the 'Comité Nord-Est des Groupements Ufologiques' (CNEGU) to Mr. and Mrs. Didier BASSET, dated October 29, 1996, thanks them for their collaboration and transmits photos taken during a visit, as well as a fascicle titled 'Opération Saros' which analyzes UFO observations as potential confusion with natural satellites. The letter mentions that an article about BASSET's 1974 observation is planned for their bulletin 'Les mystères de l'Est' and expresses a desire to include BASSET's opinion, particularly regarding the video document previously sent. They inquire if the video was received and if BASSET has any sentiment on the English sequence and other documents.

Annex XVIII: Request for meteorological information - CNEGU to Centre de Vol à Voile, Fayence - 25.02.1997

This letter from the CNEGU to the Gliding Center at the Fayence-Tourrettes aerodrome, dated February 25, 1997, requests information related to a UFO phenomenon observed in the Fayence region. They inquire about the meteorological conditions on January 7, 1974, around 9 PM (HL), specifically regarding favorable conditions for low-altitude overflights, the strength and direction of the mistral wind, and whether flights from the aerodrome took place on that date. They also ask about wind speed limits for flights, especially for helicopters, and if overflights of the Camp de Canjuers were authorized for civilian aircraft. Finally, they inquire if any particular elements were recorded in their archives for that date or a nearby period.

Annex XIX: Photographs from the video shot in England - 23 July 1991

This annex presents three photographs taken from a video shot in England on July 23, 1991. Photo N°1 shows a formation of 10 projectiles with noticeable 'fumerolles'. Photo N°2 illustrates a firing sequence of 'salvos' from two different locations. Photo N°3 depicts the formation taking on surprising appearances. A note clarifies that the horizontal row of lights corresponds to street lamps.

Annex XX: Verification Calculation and Terrain Profile

This section presents a calculation of verification based on a map (Annex XX - 1/2) and a terrain profile. It considers the hypothesis that the illuminated zone from a firing originated in the extreme South-East of the Camp de Canjuers. The analysis integrates angular sectors from St-Vallier, Pégomas, and Le Thoronet, suggesting a specific sector for the maneuver. It notes the proximity to a regulated access road within the camp and aligns with testimonial data from A & B near Trans-en-Provence and D near Vidauban. The calculation also addresses the probability of firings in the eastern part of the camp, deeming it low due to the abrupt relief. A terrain profile illustrates the observation from St-Vallier-de-Thiey, estimating the elevation and angular height of the phenomenon. It discusses potential altitudes of the 'engines' and the visibility from St-Vallier, emphasizing the need for precise orientation of the Mistral wind for a more accurate analysis.

Journal de Voyage: Au Pays des Grottes et des Ovnis

This section is a travel journal detailing a week-long trip (August 17-25, 1996) by three individuals, including Gilles MUNSCH, in the South of France, described as 'touristico-ufological'. The journey was rich in discoveries and encounters with ufological personalities.

• Friday, August 16: The trip began with a stop at Dompierre-les-Ormes, visiting the Prehistoric Museum of La Roche de Solutré.
• Saturday, August 17: The group visited caves (Azé and Blanot). During dinner in Macon, they listened to François TANTOT, a witness from Taizé, recount his observation from August 11-12, 1972.
• Sunday, August 18: A day of relaxation and preparation for the next day's departure.
• Monday, August 19: En route to Sommières, they visited the Saint-Marcel d'Ardèche cave and the Pont du Gard. They arrived in Sommières at night, intending to meet Raymond VEILLITH.
• Tuesday, August 20: They met with M. VEILLITH, who discussed the history of the review 'Lumières dans la Nuit', which he founded in 1958 and edited until 1988. They reluctantly departed.
• Wednesday, August 21: They visited the Haute-Provence Observatory, where the astronomer confirmed no reports of the August 1st phenomenon. They then traveled to Valensole, noting that the lavender had been harvested but its scent remained. They learned that the witness from Valensole no longer wished to discuss the case.
• Thursday, August 22: The objective was to meet Didier BASSET, witness and author of photos featured in Jean-Claude BOURRET's book. They located his house and the surrounding site, noting significant vegetation growth. As BASSET was absent, they descended towards Draguignan to retrace the locations and observation directions of other witnesses from the case, using M. CHASSEIGNE's investigation. They visited 'La Brèche' near Thoronet, then Le Luc, Vidauban, Trans-en-Provence, and Draguignan, filming, taking photos, and making azimuth measurements. They also met Renato NICOLAI, who confirmed that nothing remained on the 'restanque' (terrace) but authorized them to visit. The 'most famous restanque in the world' was overgrown, but the upper terraces were clean. The day concluded with a vigil at the Col de Vence, observing shooting stars but no UFOs.
• Friday, August 23: They unexpectedly met Didier BASSET and his wife, who were visiting for the weekend. BASSET recounted his observation from his terrace, where he took 6 photos on January 7, 1974, towards the Malay Mountains. The detailed encounter will be covered in the issue's investigation. They then visited Pegomas and Bagnols-en-Forêt, sites also mentioned in the investigation.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The publication consistently focuses on ufological investigations, witness testimonies, and the analysis of photographic and video evidence. There is a strong emphasis on revisiting historical cases and attempting to corroborate witness accounts with physical evidence and environmental data, such as meteorological information. The editorial stance appears to be one of diligent research, aiming for accuracy and respect for the facts, as indicated by Gilles MUNSCH's commitment to respecting the veracity of events in his planned article. The publication also shows an interest in the intersection of ufology with other fields, such as prehistory and astronomy, as evidenced by the travelogue's inclusion of cave visits and observatory tours.

This issue of 'Les Mystères de l'Est' appears to be a compilation of articles and reports related to ufology, with a particular focus on the 'mimicry' theory and the influence of science fiction on the field. The content spans several pages, featuring detailed discussions, witness accounts, and critical analyses.

Article: Mimétisme: True Lies ou La Totale!

This article, likely by E. Maillot, critically examines the theory of UFO mimicry. The author questions the logic behind extraterrestrials disguising themselves as mechanics or divers, or camouflaging their craft as helicopters, suggesting it's a facile explanation for unexplained phenomena. The piece satirizes the idea that 'mimicry' is used to explain away sightings, comparing it to an elephant in sunglasses passing unnoticed. It argues that while the 1954 UFO wave had more tangible elements like paralyzing rays and dialogues, modern sightings are often ambiguous, resembling conventional aircraft or spacecraft, making them difficult to accept without 'disinformation or manipulation.' The author posits that the mimicry theory is a 'bluff' used by believers to 'hide the deception' and that it serves to satisfy their ego by making them feel more intelligent than the supposed extraterrestrials. The article concludes that this theory allows witnesses and ufologists to avoid admitting error, attributing any misinterpretation to extraterrestrial influence rather than human fallibility.

Article: "L'ovni et l'art du camouflage ...éventé!" (Sentinel News)

This section quotes an article from Sentinel News (issue 2, summer 1996) titled 'The UFO and the art of camouflage... revealed!'. It highlights the idea that the methods used for UFO concealment are not infallible, citing 'brutal disappearances' of objects like the 'Jura wagon' or the 'GOODAYEAR balloon' in Virginia. The article discusses the case of Mr. Hill, who in 1962 saw a dirigible marked GOODYEAR that changed course and emitted flames during a storm. The author criticizes the interpretation of this event as proof of extraterrestrial presence, noting that the possibility of verifying with GOODYEAR if a dirigible was present was not explored. The piece also refers to cases published in the LDLN journal, particularly Joël Mesnard's work on '16 cases of sky-tracker or green laser parasitism.' It suggests that claims of UFOs using sky-trackers or lasers are often based on weak evidence, such as a closed discotheque or a witness mentioning a 'source above the clouds,' without proper investigation into local explanations like municipal light animations. The author criticizes this as 'débunkite aigüe' (acute debunking sickness). The article points out that these 'mimetic' cases often lack reliable data (dates, times, precise locations, witness names), making independent verification difficult. It suggests that presenting a large number of such cases compensates for a lack of quality or reality. A final point of confusion is why ETs, capable of such transformations, wouldn't simply take the form of something absurd like a pink-spotted elephant or a floating house to achieve their goals without raising suspicion.

Article: D'UN MAUVAIS USAGE CERTAIN DE LA SCIENCE FICTION

This article, by Jean Bastide, critiques the 'paranormalisation' of ufology, particularly its entanglement with science fiction. It references Bertrand Meheust's book 'Science-fiction et soucoupes volantes' (1978) and Pierre Vieroudy's 'Ces ovni qui annoncent le surhomme' (1977). Bastide highlights a case reported by Vieroudy, which originated from a science fiction magazine, concerning a UFO sighting in Finland in April 1967. The case describes a stationary red and green disc with a rotating, whitish-green appearance. Bastide points out that Vieroudy, in his haste, cited a science fiction magazine as the source without proper verification, leading to inaccuracies. The article argues that science fiction can act as a 'succédané' (substitute) for parapsychology, potentially leading researchers astray. It criticizes the reliance on 'absurd and obscure vocabulary' to lend credibility to 'insane and nebulous theories.' The author also touches upon Carlos Castaneda's sorcery experiences, which he finds irrelevant to science fiction and questionable in credibility, linking them to a broader trend of mixing science fiction with paranormal phenomena, to the detriment of serious ufology.

Article: UN RIDEAU DE FUMEE

This section, also by Jean Bastide, continues the critique of how UFO cases are reported and interpreted. It discusses a specific case that appeared in the magazine 'Phénomènes Spatiaux,' which was then cited by Pierre Vieroudy. Bastide reveals that the original case was from a science fiction magazine and that Vieroudy's reporting contained significant inaccuracies regarding the date, location, and details of the observation. The article emphasizes that while science fiction itself is not inherently problematic, its use as a basis for ufological theories, especially when presented as factual accounts without proper verification, is a serious issue. It suggests that 'coincidences' found in literature should not be used to build UFO theories, as ufology should be based on the study of 'reality' and not 'chimerical imagination.'

Field Report: Samedi 24 Août

This section details a trip by Raoul Robe and Christine Zwygar. They visited Beaume Obscure, an automated cave. Later, they stopped in Le Thor, near Sisteron, to investigate the famous observations of Dr. X. They noted changes in the landscape since 1968 and had difficulty finding the witness's villa. They recorded the azimuths of the valley. They then went to Saint-Firmin to investigate a luminous phenomenon filmed by the GONERA family on August 16, 1991, which was suspected to be a misidentification of the moon. Despite cloudy conditions obscuring the characteristic notch on Montagne du Féraud, they attempted to take measurements and photos. The trip concluded with a visit to Dompierre-les-Ormes, where Michel Figuet presented his FRANCAT file, a database of all UFO reports in France. Throughout their trip, they used phone booths to collect messages from witnesses who had called a recorded line, following appeals made in the regional press about a phenomenon observed on August 1, 1996. Upon their return, they found their answering machine full of testimonies and mail.

Field Report: Saint-Vallier-de-Thiey, le 23 Août 1996

This section includes a photograph of Raoul and Gilles in Saint-Vallier-de-Thiey on August 23, 1996, with the caption 'Ufologues du CNEGU on vacation trying to record messages left on their answering machine by witnesses from August 1st.' The image depicts them using a telephone booth.

Article: Alerte aux ovnis dans le ciel lunévillois / Quartier de la gare : colère au centre psycho-pédagogique

This is a newspaper clipping from 'EST Républicain' dated February 23, 1937 (though the year seems to be a typo and likely refers to a later date given the context of other articles). It reports on UFO alerts in Lunéville and a related incident at a psycho-pedagogical center. The article is brief and lacks detail.

Article: Alerte aux « Ovnis » à Neufmaisons

This article from 'FAITS DIVERS' reports on a strange phenomenon observed in Neufmaisons and surrounding villages on a Friday evening. Residents reported seeing two parallel beams of blue light in the sky that formed a funnel shape, with luminous 'windows' appearing between the beams. The phenomenon rotated regularly and lasted until 10 PM. Investigations led by gendarmes and the ONF considered various explanations. The most plausible explanation, confirmed by a neighbor, was that the lights were laser tests conducted from the roof of the 'Intermarché' supermarket. The manager of the store confirmed the laser tests but declined to reveal their purpose.

Article: Sommes-nous "paranormals" ?

This article, from 'LA NOUVELLE RÉPUBLIQUE DU CENTRE-OUEST' dated Wednesday, April 3, 1996, discusses the concept of 'paranormals' and introduces 'Uxors' who allegedly use telluric forces in Poitiers every night at 10 PM. It features a 'contactee' named Karim and mentions Bernard Messières, described as a 'grand master' in parapsychology and a decoder of subliminal messages. Messières is presented as an expert on telluric forces and the imminent arrival of Uxors. The article describes how Uxors communicate through subliminal messages, often via household appliances and telephones. It mentions Marie-Claude Messières, the wife of Bernard, who received a message in a soup plate. The article also cites Etienne Lejeune and Gilda, a medium, who confirm these phenomena. It describes a performance by the company '12 balles dans la peau' as a satire of paranormal claims and media 'reality shows,' suggesting that the presentation is so absurd that it makes its message effective.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of ufological theories, particularly the mimicry hypothesis and the role of science fiction. There is a strong emphasis on debunking unsubstantiated claims and advocating for a more rigorous, evidence-based approach to studying UFO phenomena. The editorial stance appears to be skeptical of sensationalism and speculative theories, favoring rational investigation and a clear distinction between factual reporting and imaginative literature. The magazine seems to promote a 'scientific' approach to ufology, warning against the 'paranormalisation' of the field and the misuse of science fiction as a substitute for empirical research. The articles highlight the importance of verifying sources, gathering precise data, and avoiding confirmation bias. There is also a concern about the influence of media and popular culture on public perception of UFOs.

This issue of "LE COURRIER DES LECTEURS" (The Readers' Mail) from January 9, 1997, published by SCEAU, focuses on a critical analysis of the relationship between science fiction (SF) and UFO phenomena. The main article, an excerpt from a bulletin by Raoul Robé titled "SIMILITUDE ENTRE SCIENCE FICTION ET UFOLOGIE" (Similarity Between Science Fiction and Ufology), is presented with commentary and reactions from readers, including a letter from Alain Gamard.

Analysis of SF and UFO Influence

The core of the issue delves into the debate about whether science fiction influenced UFO sightings or if there was a reciprocal influence. The author argues against a direct causal link, suggesting that both phenomena emerged from a shared cultural context in the 1950s. This era saw a surge in interest in SF, space exploration, and extraterrestrial life, which permeated the public consciousness and likely influenced how witnesses interpreted their experiences.

Critiques of Ufological Theories

The article strongly criticizes the work of M. Méheust, accusing him of "false reasoning," taking effects for causes, and misinterpreting evidence. Several specific examples are cited from Méheust's writings, including:

• The 'mimetic' theory: Méheust's idea that witnesses compare UFOs to objects related to their profession (e.g., a sailor comparing a UFO to a boat) is dismissed as "lame analogies."
• Jimmy Guieu's 'anticipations': Méheust highlights Jimmy Guieu's 1958 fictional account of luminous globes and a light cone, comparing it to later observations. The author points out discrepancies, such as Guieu's description of a light cone versus actual observations of solid light.
• The Antonio Villas Boas case: Méheust is accused of misrepresenting the details, particularly regarding the date and the witness's memory, suggesting hypnosis was involved when it was not.
• The Valensole incident: Méheust's account of the UFO disappearing is contrasted with more detailed reports of its accelerated escape.
• The Fred Reagan case: Méheust's summary is deemed "grossly truncated," omitting crucial details about the nature of the force, the origin of the English voice, and the cause of Reagan's death.
• Méheust's conclusions: The author challenges Méheust's assertion that UFOs are not inhabited craft, arguing that Méheust's own analysis of 'mythical forms' from SF allowing incomprehensible details to pass through actually supports the idea of UFOs being distinct from fiction.

Historical Context of the 1950s

The issue emphasizes the cultural climate of the 1950s, where SF, space exploration, and the possibility of extraterrestrial visitors were widely discussed. Publications like Paris-Match are cited for their role in popularizing the idea that UFOs might be from other worlds. The article notes the publication of books by authors like Gerald Heard and Kenneth Heuer, which explored these themes and contributed to the public discourse.

Specific Cases and References

Several specific UFO cases and historical references are discussed, including:

• The observation by Dr. X in 1968.
• The sighting by Maarup in Denmark in 1970.
• An 1845 account by the Reverend Hawlett of three globes linked by a luminous trait.
• The Pascagoula case of 1973.
• The case of Fred Reagan in 1951.

SCEAU's Services

The issue also includes information about SCEAU's "LE TROC" (The Barter) service, which facilitates the exchange of ufological books among members and the public. The service aims to build SCEAU's thematic library and make valuable resources accessible.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is a critical examination of how UFO phenomena are interpreted and the potential for misinterpretations, particularly when influenced by science fiction or biased analysis. The editorial stance appears to be one of skepticism towards simplistic explanations and a call for rigorous, evidence-based analysis, challenging the methods and conclusions of prominent ufologists like M. Méheust. The issue concludes with a somewhat dismissive tone towards those who are easily convinced, labeling "soucoupistes" (UFO enthusiasts) as naive.

This issue of "OVNI...PELE-MELE..." (issues 112-116) is a collection of articles and reports focusing on unidentified flying objects (UFOs) and their intersection with space missions, military aviation, and popular culture, primarily from a French perspective. The publication appears to be a compilation of various pieces, possibly from different sources, offering a mix of investigative reports, critical analyses, and historical perspectives on the UFO phenomenon.

CES OVNIS QUI ACCOMPAGNENT LES MISSIONS SPATIALES

This section leads with an article discussing a video from the NASA space shuttle Discovery (STS 48) filmed on September 15, 1991, over Australia. The article critiques the magazine "FACTEUR X" for sensationalizing the event, suggesting the objects were merely ice crystals reflecting sunlight, a common occurrence near space stations. The analysis by Professor Jack Kasher, who claimed the objects showed impossible acceleration, is presented as an example of how ufology can create mysteries from mundane events. The article argues that "FACTEUR X" deliberately omitted the scientific explanation to promote a commercial ufology.

DEBUT DE LA VAGUE BELGE OBSERVE EN ARDENNES?

This piece reports on observations made in the Belgian and French Ardennes starting in October 1989. An observer, a former air force photographer, described seeing various military jets and B52s flying in formation, often over border areas. These sightings occurred before the Gulf War and the well-publicized Belgian UFO wave of 1989-1990. The article suggests that frequent military air exercises, including those related to the Gulf War, likely contributed to the sightings, and that explanations involving F117 stealth aircraft and other advanced military technology should not be dismissed.

OVNI...PELE MELE...

This section contains several shorter articles:

• Official Denials and Military Aircraft: An article discusses how official statements denying French airspace violations by American aircraft during the Gulf War were politically motivated, similar to the denial of French territory being affected by the Chernobyl cloud. It highlights the presence of F117s and other advanced military aircraft near Belgian bases as a potential explanation for some UFO sightings during the 1989-1990 Belgian wave.
• SEPRA Misinterprets a Rocket: An article critiques the SEPRA (Service d'Expertise des Phénomènes de Rentrées Atmosphériques) for misidentifying a Russian rocket disintegration as a UFO. The analysis by J. Jacques Vélasco of a photo published in Paris Match is presented as a significant error in ufology, classifying it as a 99% misidentification.

OVNI...PELE MELE... (Continued)

• Saturn's Rings and UFOs: An article from "ICI PARIS" reports on alleged NASA revelations about cigar-shaped spacecraft larger than Earth observed in Saturn's rings for 15 years. The claims are attributed to Dr. Walter Vincenti and Dr. Norman R. Bergrun. The article notes that Guy Tarade presented this information, linking it to Nostradamus's prophecies. A web investigation into these claims yielded surprising results, with a Dr. Ronald Tilman confirming Saturnian spacecraft and smaller cigar-shaped objects filmed from the MIR station, suggesting they might be preparing to invade Cuba.
• Petroglyphs on the Moon: Olivier Clergot's publication "Les mystères de la lune" is mentioned, which allegedly shows Greek letters, mining facilities, and vehicles on the lunar surface, suggesting the moon holds many surprises and advancing ufology and astronomy.
• Operation a Balloon for School: This brief note mentions the ANSTJ (Association Nationale Sciences et Techniques Jeunesse) collaborating with CNES to provide school classes with weather balloons for atmospheric measurements, implying that students involved will learn not to mistake balloons for UFOs.
• UFO Video Investigation: J. Luc Lemaire of CEOF08 presented a video of a UFO filmed in Le Luot (50) on May 14, 1996. The object moved slowly, appeared amorphous, and resembled a cluster of balloons. Lemaire argued against a 'reductionist' explanation by citing wind data, but his own statements and previous writings contained contradictions regarding the object's direction and the wind. The article concludes that the explanation of the object following the wind is confirmed by SOSOVNI.

OVNI...PELE MELE... (Continued)

• Paraglider vs. UFO: An explanation by the gendarmerie that a sighting was a paraglider is dismissed by observers, who find it less convincing than other explanations for the images and investigation results. SOSOVNI leaves the UFO possibility open. PHENOMENA magazine published analyses of the video, but the expert's conclusion stated that the study provided no additional information.
• Diploma in Ufology: The CERAF (Cercle d'Etude et Recherche en Archéologie Fantastique) has created an ufology department, offering a numbered diploma and membership in the "confraternity of ufologists of France" for a fee.
• New Liaison Bulletin: Robert Alessandri has launched "INH CONTACT," a bulletin for the INH Evidence association, which aims to inform members about excommunication methods used against ufologists.
• CNEGU in the Press: Several press mentions of the CNEGU (Centre d'Étude et de Documentation sur les Phénomènes Spatiaux) are listed. Patrice Vachon was interviewed about his investigation into military personnel mistaken for ETs. Eric Loret of SCIENCE et VIE JUNIOR received documentation on UFOs and Operation Saros. Gérard Jean of LIMOUSIN MAGAZINE published an interview with Gilles Munsch about CNEGU's work on lunar misidentifications. A report of an unusual sighting near Ussel is also mentioned.

OVNI...PELE MELE... (Continued)

• Diurnal Meteors on June 24, 1947?: This article revisits the hypothesis that Kenneth Arnold's famous 1947 sighting might have been of diurnal meteors. Citing statistical studies by Richard Norton and information from "Meteor News," it suggests that meteor showers, particularly the Draconids or Bootids, occur in June and can appear slow. The article questions whether Arnold's estimate of 1 minute 42 seconds for the sighting duration was accurate. It also notes that four radians of diurnal meteorites were discovered between May and July 1947, with the Beta Taurides being active. The article concludes that this hypothesis, while verifiable through astronomical archives, is one of the better explanations after 'flying wings' for Arnold's sighting, which is considered a historical case based on a single, highly publicized testimony with questionable physical parameters.
• The YB35 Bomber: A note mentions the YB35 bomber and its jet-powered variant, the YB49, tested in 1947. A drawing by a witness is compared to the 'flying pancake' YF-5U and 'giant boomerangs,' questioning which representation is accurate.

SPECTACLE INSOLITE

This piece reviews a theatrical performance in Epinal titled "12 balles dans la peau" (12 Bullets in the Skin). The show is described as a satirical take on the irrational, featuring an exhibition of "irrefutable proofs" of the bizarre, such as a star-shaped broken plate, a self-operating razor, a 1960s radio that turned on by itself, a metallic pebble emitting waves, and a typewriter producing Cyrillic characters. The performance itself takes place within a tent decorated with flying saucers, with the theme being "the incredible." The show includes a lecturer, Bernard Messières, who discusses parapsychology and claims to detect spirits, along with other figures like a hypnotist, a clairvoyant, and a 'contactee.' The review praises the production's technical aspects, humor, and the actors' performances, calling it an "intelligent" and "delightful" show.

QUI S'EN SOUVIENT ?

This section features an advertisement for a "CHAUFFE-AIR 1960" (Heater-Air 1960) from the ufological review OURANOS (1st quarter 1960). The advertisement describes a transparent plastic helmet, available in self-heating or with a portable radiator, designed to protect against wind, rain, and cold, and to prevent colds. The article questions whether this transparent helmet was widely commercialized and suggests it could be a source of 'humanoid' misidentifications. The author thanks readers for any documentation they might find on this accessory.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the persistent presence of UFO phenomena in public discourse, the attempts to explain these phenomena through scientific, military, or mundane causes, and the critical examination of how media and ufological organizations report and interpret these events. The editorial stance appears to be one of skepticism towards sensationalism and a preference for evidence-based explanations, while still acknowledging the enduring mystery surrounding UFOs. There is a clear effort to debunk claims that lack solid evidence and to highlight instances where scientific explanations are overlooked or misrepresented in favor of more extraordinary narratives. The publication also seems interested in the cultural impact of UFOs, particularly in France, and their representation in science fiction and popular media.