Mysteres De L'Est - No 06 - 2001

Magazine Overview

Title: LES MYSTÈRES DE L'EST
Issue: N° 6
Date: Année 2001 (April 2001)
Publisher: CNEGU (Comité Nord-Est des Groupes Ufologiques)
Country: France
Language: French
ISSN: 1277-5533

This issue of 'Les Mystères de l'Est' is a bulletin dedicated to ufology, published by the CNEGU. It covers a range of topics related to unidentified aerial phenomena (OVNI), including research conducted by the CNEGU, UFOs as reported in the press, reader contributions, and analyses of specific cases. The magazine aims to provide a platform for disseminating information and fostering discussion within the ufological community.

Contents and Articles

Editorial

The editorial section reflects on recent developments in ufology, particularly concerning statements and reports from organizations like SEPRA/CNES and the COMETA group. It critically examines the claims made by Jean-Jacques Vėlasco and the COMETA report, questioning the transparency and completeness of official investigations. The editorial also reviews a VSD magazine special on 'UFOs in Chile,' criticizing its methodology and reliance on unverified information. It suggests a potential pattern of sensationalism and a lack of genuine, unexplained cases being presented to the public.

Les Travaux du CNEGU (CNEGU's Works)

This section details the research and investigations undertaken by the CNEGU. It includes:

• "Enfin un cas inexpliqué : observation à Langres (52) fin septembre 1975": An article detailing an unexplained observation case in Langres.
• "Observation d'un phénomène curieux le 19 octobre 1726, en Côte d'Or et autres lieux": A historical account of a curious phenomenon observed in the Côte d'Or region.
• "Les S.V. dans la S.F., dans le roman d'aventure et dans la B.D.": An exploration of 'S.V.' (likely referring to 'Sujets Volants' or Flying Objects) in science fiction, adventure novels, and comic books.
• "Une observation d'ovni publiée en juillet 2000... déjà expliquée avant 1956": An analysis of a UFO sighting published in 2000 that had already been explained in 1956.
• "Kelly-Hopkinsville : un classique bien trop chouette": A re-examination of the well-known Kelly-Hopkinsville case.
• "La chouette histoire de deux cas jumeaux": An article presenting two seemingly twin cases.
• "Vous avez dit Paradoxal?": A discussion on paradoxical aspects of UFO cases.
• "OVNI certain, probable ou expliqué?!": An article categorizing UFO sightings.
• "Une nouvelle piste pour la fausse autopsie de l'ET de Roswell": A new perspective on the Roswell alien autopsy hoax.
• "Photo mystère - 1 (humour)": A humorous take on a mysterious photograph.
• "Metz rencontre rapprochée avec corrélation radar": A detailed report on a close encounter in Metz involving radar correlation.

Les Ovni dans la presse (UFOs in the Press)

This section reviews how UFOs are covered in the media:

• "Eureka : On Veut Nous Imiter !!": An article discussing media imitation regarding UFO reports.
• "Revue de presse : (zone CNEGU)": A compilation of press clippings related to UFOs from the CNEGU's region.

La tribune de l'extérieur (Tribune from the Outside)

This section features external perspectives:

• "Un étrange prestige dans le ciel Franciscam": An account of a strange sighting in the sky.
• "Réflexions sur le rapport COMETA": Reflections on the COMETA report.
• "Photo mystère ! - 2": Another mysterious photograph, possibly humorous.

Le courrier des lecteurs (Readers' Mail)

• "Jean-Claude Neglais (ex GPUN/CNEGU) nous écrit ... et nous lui répondons": Correspondence from a former member, Jean-Claude Neglais, with a response from the CNEGU.

Le pêle-mêle (Miscellany)

This section contains various short items:

• "Pêle-mêle": General miscellany.
• "Photo Miss Teire (solution 1)": Solution to a previous photo mystery.
• "Photo mystère (solution 2)": Solution to another photo mystery.
• "Publicités": Advertisements.

The section also notes that it includes humor pages signed by Raoul Robé.

Hommage à deux amis trop tôt disparus (Tribute to Two Friends Lost Too Soon)

This section pays tribute to two individuals who passed away:

• Alain Gamard: Remembered for his contributions to ufology and his expertise in comparing ufology with science fiction. He specialized in cases of humanoid apparitions and collaborated on a book about them.
• Michel Figuet: Honored for his extensive work on UFO sightings in France, particularly his research on close encounters. He was the president of SERPAN and authored significant works on UFOs, including "OVNI : le premier dossier complet des rencontres rapprochées en France" and "OVNI en Provence." He was also a regular contributor to 'Les Mystères de l'Est'.

Droit de réponse (Right of Reply)

This section contains a letter from Jean-Luc Lemaire, head of the Ardennes section of the Centre d'Études O.V.N.I. France, addressed to Eric Maillot of CNEGU. Lemaire is responding to an article co-authored by Maillot concerning the Floing dossier. He asserts that his team (C.E.O.F.) is still investigating the Floing case, which has unexplained elements, and that some elements are consistent with unidentified drones or aircraft. He provides a link to his personal website for those interested in the case file.

Presentation of the CNEGU

Page 3 provides a detailed presentation of the Comité Nord-Est des Groupes Ufologiques (CNEGU). It states that the committee has been active for over thirty years, collecting and verifying information on UFO phenomena. Founded in 1978, CNEGU aims to coordinate regional research, develop a rational methodology for analysis, and build an important documentation base, particularly concerning the Champagne, Ardennes, Bourgogne, and Lorraine regions. The committee also seeks cooperation with other researchers and public organizations. The publication 'Les Mystères de l'Est' is mentioned as a means to disseminate their work. The current members of CNEGU are listed as Francine Juncosa, Patrick Fournel, Renaud Leclet, Eric Maillot, Gilles Munsch, Raoul Robé, and Christine Zwygart.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the investigation and analysis of UFO phenomena, with a strong emphasis on empirical research and critical evaluation of evidence. The CNEGU presents its own research, historical cases, and analyses, while also engaging with media reports and other ufological organizations. The editorial stance is critical of sensationalism and perceived cover-ups, advocating for transparency and rigorous investigation. There is a clear dedication to uncovering the truth behind unexplained aerial phenomena, even when it involves debunking or re-evaluating previously accepted cases. The magazine also highlights the importance of collaboration and the sharing of information within the ufological community, as evidenced by the reader mail section and the tributes to deceased researchers.

This document details an unexplained aerial phenomenon observed in Langres, Haute-Marne, France, in late September 1975. The investigation was conducted by Gilles MUNSCH and Christine ZWYGART, and the report is presented as an "inexplicable case."

The Observation Date

The witnesses, M. and Mme G., initially recalled the year 1976 but, upon reflection, placed the event in late September 1975, a period when M. G. had changed his work shifts. They were certain it was a Saturday evening, either the last or second-to-last of the month. The time of observation was around 8:30 PM (20:30), which was their usual time to travel to their weekly tarot game at M. G.'s brother's house.

The Facts

On the evening of the observation, M. and Mme G. were driving towards M. G.'s brother's home. As they turned from Rue Mermoz onto the perpendicular street along Place Bel Air, they noticed a luminous "ball" to their right, behind a red light, approaching their direction. While Mme G. remained on the sidewalk, M. G. crossed the street to Place Bel Air, which was dimly lit by a small light and had no circulating or parked vehicles.

The "ball" grew larger as it approached, revealing a massive halo. M. G. estimated its speed at 25 to 30 km/h. As it drew closer, the object took on the appearance of a plate facing the witness, with a white perimeter and intense luminosity. The object passed slowly, almost directly over M. G., and then over a silo located just behind him at the end of the square. This silo was approximately 35 meters high, leading M. G. to estimate the object's altitude as slightly more than that. He noted the absence of an antenna on the silo's roof at the time, only a lightning rod, suggesting the object might have hit it otherwise. Mme G. recalled thinking the object was going to collide with the silo itself.

After passing over the silo, M. G. moved to the right side of the building to continue observing but was stopped by a fence. He saw the object slowly move away, then change trajectory to the right before reappearing, initially as a luminous ball with a halo, and finally disappearing behind a building.

Mme G., who stayed on the sidewalk, could not see the object in as much detail as her husband. She confirmed the large black cylinder shape and the light at the rear but did not see the front or the rim. She was worried about her husband's proximity to the phenomenon.

The entire observation on the square lasted about ten seconds, in total silence, with no reported effects of wind, heat, or glare. The total duration of the sighting was at least one minute. Neither M. nor Mme G. ever heard of any other witnesses to this phenomenon.

The Phenomenon (Description)

The object was described as a black cylinder, about ten meters in diameter and thirty meters long, with a luminous zone extending another ten meters. The front center was described as black, matte, round, about five meters in diameter, and slightly convex, like a shield or the bottom of a cistern. This center was surrounded by a "bead" approximately 15 centimeters thick and 50 centimeters wide, bordered by a flat rim two meters wide. From the inner side of this "bead," a translucent white "vapor" emerged, sliding radially along the surface and reaching the lateral side of the black cylinder. This "vapor" dispersed into fine, hair-like wisps, similar to liquid nitrogen vapor, which vanished into the intense light at the rear of the cylinder. At the rear, over a length of about ten meters and across the entire diameter, hundreds or thousands of small "crosses," resembling Christmas sparklers, emitted an intense white light that illuminated the square without causing discomfort.

Mme G. confirmed the large black cylinder shape, the vapor trails, and the light at the rear, though she could not see the detailed front structure.

Analysis of the Testimony

The sincerity of the witnesses is considered beyond doubt, with M. G. retaining a vivid and detailed memory of the event over 20 years later. The phenomenon is described as highly atypical, with no truly similar observations found in the database. A case in Moutiers, Yonne, is noted as potentially comparable for two reasons: the date (September 12, 1975) and a detail about the phenomenon being a luminous ball with "various kinds of small rods emitting crackles and sparks like the sticks one puts in Christmas trees."

Other cases of "large black cylinders evolving silently at low altitude" have been recorded but lack true similarity. The investigators are interested in any cases that share global or specific characteristics, such as the comparison to Christmas sparklers.

The observation is classified as a "Close Encounter" based on the sole testimony. Its unusual characteristics, such as size, luminosity, and silence, contribute to a high "strangeness index." However, the "information quality index" is considered more modest due to the imprecise date, lack of physical traces, and the absence of independent external witnesses, although the presence of two witnesses (husband and wife) is noted.

The investigators emphasize the need for a critical look at the reported facts, despite the strong impression that an "extraordinary event" occurred and the witnesses' apparent honesty.

Synthesis Images

The document includes several computer-generated images (using SOLIDWORKS 2000 and PHOTOWORKS) illustrating the phenomenon's progression based on the witness testimony. These images depict the object approaching, hovering over Place Bel Air, passing over the silo, and moving away. They aim to represent the object's shape, luminosity, and trajectory as described by M. and Mme G.

Possible Explanations

While hypotheses based on terrestrial aircraft or known technology are considered difficult to support, the possibility of misinterpretation of an extraordinary stimulus is raised. An atmospheric re-entry, particularly a spectacular one, is suggested as a potential explanation, accounting for the duration and silence. However, the investigators acknowledge that such a hypothesis might be dismissed as "far-fetched."

Factors influencing the testimony's credit include the witnesses' relationship (husband and wife of a certain generation), the long delay between the event and the investigation (over twenty years), which could have led to memory distortion or reconstruction. The curved trajectory is noted as not being very compatible with atmospheric re-entry, although perspective effects and post-event reconstruction could play a role. Details of the description are also said to align with other cases in the UFO literature.

The investigators also consider that a large-scale atmospheric re-entry would likely have been observed by many people and reported in the press, which did not happen in this case. The duration of the phenomenon also seems to exclude that of a meteor (which are typically faster).

They are continuing research to find cases of re-entries that might correspond to the date and time.

Regarding the illumination of Place Bel Air, the investigators suggest that a highly luminous object at high altitude could not produce such a gradual lighting effect. They propose that a cloud acting as a mask or screen, closer to the ground, might explain this, but this would require assuming the presence of such a cloud, which would also have altered the phenomenon's appearance.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine appears to focus on unexplained aerial phenomena and detailed case studies. The editorial stance is one of critical investigation, acknowledging the sincerity of witnesses while rigorously examining the evidence and considering various explanatory hypotheses, including both conventional and unconventional possibilities. There is a clear emphasis on thorough documentation and analysis of witness accounts, often supported by visual aids like diagrams and computer-generated images. The publication seems to lean towards presenting unexplained cases rather than definitively debunking them, while maintaining a scientific and analytical approach.

This issue of the magazine, dated June 2001, focuses on the analysis of historical celestial phenomena, particularly a series of events in 1726 and 1730. The cover headline and main article title, "OBSERVATION D'UN PHENOMENE CURIEUX: Le 19 octobre 1726 en Côte d'Or et autres lieux," clearly indicate the central theme: investigating and explaining unusual sightings from the past.

The magazine presents a detailed examination of these historical accounts, aiming to debunk the notion that they were UFO (OVNI) sightings. Instead, it posits that these phenomena were a spectacular and widespread aurora borealis.

Case Study: The 19 October 1726 Event

The core of the issue revolves around the events of October 19, 1726, which were reported across various regions of France (Côte d'Or, Loiret, Aube, Saône et Loire) and even in Belgium. The article meticulously compiles and analyzes descriptions from contemporary sources, including parish registers and historical texts.

Corcelles-les-Monts (Côte d'Or)

An account from the environs of Dijon describes rays like flames appearing in the sky around 10-11 PM, causing fear and interpreted as a presage of war. The date is noted as October 19, 1726, despite a reference to the eve of Saint Luc (October 18).

Saint-Romain-sous-Versigny (Saône et Loire)

Parish records mention a phenomenon in November (though the context suggests it might be related to the 1726 events) where a thick smoke covered the sky, and a large, black, transparent globe appeared, emitting fiery projectiles and flying stars. This event illuminated the earth like the moon and caused terror and superstition.

Frangy (Saône et Loire)

Two distinct phenomena are reported for this location. The first, on October 19, 1726, describes a luminous phenomenon at dusk, resembling a column of fire. It emerged from a fog, with smoke and what appeared to be constellations rising from it. Rapid fiery streaks shot up into the sky, creating a bright display without casting shadows. The second account, dated November 16, 1730, describes a northern light with white and dark clouds, which divided into segments and formed a long arc of light, accompanied by red fire.

Sceaux du Gâtinais (Loiret)

On October 19, 1726, a line appeared in the sky, occupying half the horizon. Despite the moon not yet having risen, the sky was as clear as if lit by the sun. Small lightning-like flashes were observed, forming white and fiery lights that pulsed and trembled.

Echilleuses (Loiret)

On the same date, October 19, extraordinary celestial signs were seen as pyramids of fire, red and blue, moving in formation like an army. Flashes and flying stars were observed, creating a spectacle that lasted for over an hour.

Villefranche-du-Rouergue (Aveyron)

On October 20, 1726, two brilliant clouds of fire appeared, through which stars could be seen. Four bars of fire were observed between these clouds, and the phenomenon lasted for more than four hours, leading to church bells being rung and prayers being offered.

Aube Department

Reports from the Aube department on October 19, 1726, describe meteorological phenomena that caused widespread panic. The sky was described as being on fire, with electric lights and detonations.

Belgium (Ath and Vilvorde)

The phenomenon was also observed in Belgium. In Ath, on October 19, 1726, large fiery clouds appeared, seemingly clashing without noise, with the sky appearing ablaze. Fiery circles moved like waves on a agitated sea. In Vilvorde, on October 29, 1726, horrible meteors were seen surging and disappearing among the clouds like lightning.

Analysis and Conclusion: Aurora Borealis

The article strongly argues that these diverse accounts, despite their varied descriptions and the imaginative language of the era, all point to a single, massive atmospheric event: an aurora borealis. The author, Patrice VACHON, explicitly states that the answer to whether these phenomena were UFOs is "No." He criticizes modern researchers who have incorrectly linked these historical events to extraterrestrial visitation, suggesting they have not conducted thorough investigations.

The magazine cites historical scientific works, including those by Gassendi and Dortous de Mairan, who studied auroras. A key reference is Dortous de Mairan's "Traité Physique et Historique de L'Aurore Boréale" (Physical and Historical Treatise on the Aurora Borealis), published in 1754, which describes the aurora borealis as a common, grand, and remarkable phenomenon.

VACHON contends that the 1726 event was an aurora borealis of extraordinary magnitude, visible even in Spain and Africa. He contrasts the historical scientific analysis of the event with what he perceives as a less rigorous approach by some modern "researchers."

Case Study: The 1730 Phenomenon

A secondary focus is on a phenomenon observed on November 16, 1730, also in Frangy. This event is described as a northern light, with clouds and arcs of light, and red fire. This is also presented as part of the broader discussion on atmospheric phenomena that might be mistaken for other things.

Supplementary Information

The issue includes notes on witness confidentiality, availability of photographic documents, and the archival location of the investigation files (CNEGU and SCEAU-Archives OVNI at the Moselle Departmental Archives).

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue is the critical examination of historical accounts of unexplained phenomena. The editorial stance is clearly skeptical of UFO explanations for past events, favoring scientific and meteorological interpretations. The magazine champions rigorous analysis and historical context, aiming to correct what it views as misinterpretations and sensationalism in some UFO research. The issue emphasizes the importance of understanding historical phenomena within their contemporary scientific and cultural frameworks, concluding that the 1726 event was a remarkable natural display rather than evidence of extraterrestrial activity.

This document presents a detailed description and analysis of two significant Aurora Borealis events observed in 1726. The primary focus is on observations made at Breüillepont, France, on September 26th and October 19th of that year. The text is divided into sections detailing these observations, with contributions from M. de Mairan and M. Godin, and includes explanations of accompanying figures.

Description of the Aurora Borealis (September 26, 1726)

M. de Mairan provides an account of an Aurora Borealis observed on September 26, 1726, at Breüillepont. He describes it as a 'Septentrional light or Aurora Borealis,' a phenomenon considered ordinary in northern countries and ancient. He notes that while ancient philosophers did not specifically identify it, they referred to it generically as a phenomenon or celestial light. M. Gaffendi is credited with naming it 'Aurora Borealis' in 1621, linking it to its northern position and its resemblance to the light preceding sunrise. M. de Mairan states that prior to 1716, the Aurora Borealis had appeared infrequently, but after that date, it became more common. The specific observation on September 26th is described as a 'very ordinary' phenomenon, with a luminous arc and columns.

Aurora Borealis (October 19, 1726)

This section, attributed to M. Godin, details a more remarkable Aurora Borealis observed on October 19, 1726. The weather preceding the event was clear and calm. M. Godin was alerted to a large light in the sky around 7:15 PM. He observed a great arc of a circle, with a limbus of about 5 to 6 degrees in width, appearing in the North. This arc was described as having a violet hue and was much brighter and more extensive than the previous observation. The limbus's upper edge, near its center, was less distinct. He noted a segment of the arc, about 5 to 6 degrees wide, which was dark and opaque, obscuring the sky within it. From the lower edge of this limbus, columns or 'crenels' of darkness, resembling smoke, extended upwards. These dark crenels were interspersed with luminous areas, creating the appearance of luminous columns. The observation also noted the presence of stars, some of which were obscured by the limbus and segment.

Detailed Observations and Analysis

The text delves into the intricate details of the Aurora Borealis, particularly the October 19th event. M. de Mairan's account, presented on page 203, elaborates on the arc's structure, noting two points where it seemed to rest on the horizon, approximately 2.5 to 3 degrees east of the vertical line. He measured the arc's base to be 102 degrees. He observed that at these points, the light was brighter and more diffused than elsewhere, forming a 'bouquet' shape. The opaque segment within the arc was initially thought to be an accidental cloud but persisted throughout the observation. He describes the appearance of 18 to 20 dark columns or crenels extending from the obscure segment towards the circumference, interspersed with luminous areas.

On page 204, M. Godin continues his description of the October 19th event. He notes that after observing the phenomenon, he returned indoors for a short period, only to be called back by others who were amazed by the spectacle. He describes the sky being illuminated from all sides by a light rising from the horizon in undulating waves, converging towards a point overhead, forming a kind of crown. This point of convergence is referred to as the 'key of the vault.' The violet segment on the north side remained, but the smoke-like columns dissipated. He observed that the illuminated limbus blended with white, scattered clouds. The eastern part of the sky was particularly bright, with striking vibrations. The western part showed a remarkable mass of dark, violet clouds, with luminous undulations. The southern part appeared calmer, with a dark sky and visible stars.

Pages 205-209 provide further detailed descriptions, including the appearance of the light as 'smoke' or 'luminescent smoke,' and the formation of 'jets of light' that extended towards the zenith. The text discusses the color of the light, which varied from white to yellowish and reddish. The phenomenon's movement was also a key aspect, with descriptions of undulations and shifts in position. The authors attempted to determine the altitude and location of the Aurora, with estimates suggesting it was high in the atmosphere, possibly over 50 leagues above the observer.

Scientific Interpretation and Terminology

The authors engage in scientific discourse, attempting to explain the nature of the Aurora Borealis. They discuss its characteristics, such as its luminosity, color, shape, and movement. The term 'Aurora Borealis' itself is discussed, with its origin attributed to M. Gaffendi. The text also touches upon historical accounts of similar phenomena, noting that ancient writers sometimes mistook them for armies or aerial battles. The authors differentiate between the visual appearance of the phenomenon and its potential underlying cause, suggesting that the observed 'waves' or 'vibrations' might be related to the arrangement of luminous clouds and vapors.

Figures and Illustrations

The document refers to figures that illustrate the observed phenomena. These figures, engraved from pastels made on-site, depict the Aurora Borealis of September 26th and October 19th, as well as projections of the celestial hemisphere. Figure 1 shows the September 26th event, while Figure 2 illustrates the October 19th event. Figure 3 is a projection of the celestial hemisphere, representing the phenomenon as observed around 8 PM. The text explains how to interpret these figures, including their orientation and perspective.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

A recurring theme throughout the document is the scientific endeavor to understand and explain the Aurora Borealis. The authors meticulously record their observations, employing precise language to describe the visual characteristics of the phenomenon. There is a clear attempt to move beyond mere description towards scientific interpretation, including estimations of altitude and location. The text reflects the scientific curiosity of the early 18th century, where phenomena like the Aurora Borealis were subjects of intense study and debate. The editorial stance is one of detailed, empirical observation and rational inquiry, aiming to demystify celestial events and place them within a scientific framework. The authors acknowledge the limitations of their observations and express a desire for further data and analysis to confirm their hypotheses.

This issue of "Mémories de l'Académie Royale" (Memoirs of the Royal Academy) presents a collection of articles and analyses related to astronomical phenomena, historical sightings, and the intersection of these with science fiction and popular culture. The content spans historical observations of meteors and auroras, the evolution of science fiction in literature and comics, and detailed case studies of alleged UFO sightings.

Historical Astronomical Observations

The initial articles (pages 292-294) delve into historical observations of meteors and atmospheric phenomena. One account describes a meteor observed over several hours, noting its undulating movement and the appearance of flames. It also mentions the Aurora Borealis and other light phenomena. The text references similar events noted in 1621 and 1710, suggesting a continuity of such sightings. Further details are provided about observations in Dieppe, Rheims, and Mantes, including descriptions of unusual light displays and atmospheric conditions. The text also touches upon ancient historical accounts, referencing the Book of Maccabees and Josephus for prodigies preceding significant events.

Science Fiction and Flying Saucers

A significant portion of the magazine is dedicated to the theme of flying saucers in science fiction, particularly in French literature and comics. Articles on pages 45-51 explore how authors and artists have depicted these phenomena:

• Early Science Fiction: The article on page 45 highlights the early use of space vessels in popular novels, citing Arnould Galopin's twelve-fascicule series "Aventures Fantastiques d'un Jeune Parisien" (Fantastic Adventures of a Young Parisian), published between 1908 and 1909, which achieved widespread distribution.
• Children's Literature and Comics: Pages 46-47 discuss how children's literature and comics have embraced the theme. The "Lecture et Loisir" collection featured "Tom Swift et son satellite fantôme" (Tom Swift and His Phantom Satellite) in 1961, based on a 1956 American work. The "Aventures de demain" series from 1957 depicted a space station shaped like a flying saucer. Henri Vernes's 1964 novel "S.S.S." featuring Bob Morane, explored the origin of flying saucers, with the editor Marabout Junior providing a didactic explanation for readers.
• Comic Book Depictions: Several comic series are showcased:
• "Tarou" (pages 49) features an expedition to New Caledonia in 1976, where the hero encounters a "Nazi" flying saucer. The accompanying text mentions Joseph Altairac's article on the "V7" myth.
• "Nevada" (pages 50) in its March 1984 issue, presents a Western story where a bandit stumbles upon an abandoned alien vessel, mistaken by local Indians for the "Grand Manitou's" ship.
• "Akim" (page 51) in its June 1984 issue, depicts the jungle king confronting aliens in an episode titled "Mission extra-terrestre" (Extra-terrestrial Mission).
• "Vick" (page 51) in its July 1973 issue, presented "Delta 99" and "Micromegax," featuring ETs and secret agents.

Analysis of UFO Cases

Page 52 presents an analysis of a UFO observation published in July 2000, which was already explained prior to 1956. The case involved an observation made on August 1, 1952, by two F-86E Sabre pilots near Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio. Initially classified as "unidentified" by the US Air Force, further investigation by Lieutenant Andy Flues revealed it to be a 6-meter diameter balloon launched from Wright Patterson. The article notes that the aircraft's radar had also malfunctioned, contributing to the confusion. The author emphasizes that thorough investigation can transform unidentified cases into identified ones, suggesting that other remaining cases from a list of ten might also be identifiable.

References

The issue includes a list of references for further reading on UFOs, citing works by D. Keyhoe, E. J. Ruppelt, R. Hall, Dr. E. U. Condon, and articles from "LDLN" and "VSD."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the historical observation of unusual aerial phenomena, the cultural impact of flying saucers in science fiction and popular media, and the critical analysis of UFO reports. The editorial stance appears to be one of historical inquiry and rational explanation, as demonstrated by the detailed debunking of the 1952 Wright Patterson AFB sighting and the emphasis on thorough investigation to identify the nature of reported phenomena. The magazine bridges the gap between historical scientific observation and contemporary popular fascination with extraterrestrial encounters.

This document is a scanned article from a French ufology magazine, issue number 53, focusing on the classic Kelly-Hopkinsville case. The article, titled 'KELLY-HOPKINSVILLE: UN CLASSIQUE BIEN TROP CHOUETTE' (A Classic Way Too 'Hoot'), is authored by Renaud Leclet and appears to be from a 1996 publication, though the specific date is not explicitly stated on the cover. The main theme is the re-examination of the 1955 Kelly-Hopkinsville encounter through the lens of misidentification, primarily with the Grand Duke owl.

The Kelly-Hopkinsville Case Re-examined

The article begins by referencing a conversation in October 1996 about a potential misidentification of a barn owl or harrier with a Grand Duke owl. This led the author to investigate the 1955 Kelly-Hopkinsville case, noting a discrepancy in the reported date (August 2nd vs. August 21st, 1955). Leclet expresses a long-held observation that foreign UFO cases often seem more mysterious than French ones due to verification difficulties. He decided to re-examine this 'mythical' case from France, 45 years later, seeking a coherent explanation.

Several unsatisfactory explanations previously proposed are reviewed and dismissed:
1. Hallucination: Ruled out due to the number of witnesses.
2. Hoax by witnesses: Considered unlikely due to the risk of injury from firearms.
3. Profit motive: Dismissed as the witnesses did not seek payment and only put up a sign to deter curiosity seekers.
4. Teasing the public: Considered less risky to alert the press than to involve the police, and the witnesses' fear was noted.
5. Misidentification with escaped circus animals: A possibility that is later explored in detail.

Context of the Observation

The Sutton farm was isolated, about 11 kilometers north of Hopkinsville. The article notes inconsistencies in reported distances. The farm was surrounded by maple trees, with a yard containing a well where Billy Taylor first observed a bright object with a horizontal course and a trail, which disappeared towards the northeast. The house had no front fence, only a dilapidated one at the back. Fields of tobacco surrounded the property, and about 150 meters away was a ravine where the object was thought to have landed.

The incident began around 7:00 PM on Sunday, August 21, 1955, when Billy Taylor went to fetch water and saw the object. Upon returning, he told his family, who initially did not believe him. The family members present included Mrs. Glunnic Sutton (50), John (Charlley) Sutton, Vera Surton (29), Alene Sutton (27), Lonnie Sutton (12), Mary Lankford (7), June Taylor (18), Charlton Lankford (10), and Op Baker (30).

Flying Saucer, Meteor, or Military Exercise?

Later that night, around 11:00 PM, a police officer heard several 'meteors' accompanied by noises, describing them as larger and brighter than the Perseids. The article questions if this could have been two jet planes from nearby military bases (Fort Knox or Fort Campbell North) or a military exercise, noting that this possibility was not explored in ufological literature.

Confirmation of a Meteor Passage

While Billy Taylor did not see a meteor at 7:00 PM, the article suggests a Cygnid meteor (active August 18-22) could explain his observation, or a distant jet plane reflecting the sunset. Several witnesses in the Kelly area reported seeing a fireball around 6:30 PM, heading north. This includes M. Ermet Long, state troopers, and military personnel from Fort Campbell North. This suggests the time of observation might have been 6:30 PM, not 7:00 PM as reported.

Search for UFO Traces

Investigators focused on the ravine behind the farm. The absence of landing traces led some to suggest the craft hovered one meter above the ground to deposit the entities. The impression of a landing might have come from the meteor disappearing behind an obstacle.

The Observation of Small Humanoids

Around 7:30 PM, dogs began barking. Lucky and Billy Sutton saw a strange light approaching in a field. A small humanoid, about 0.70 meters tall (contrary to other reports of 1 to 1.10 meters), became visible. The men fired, and the humanoid fell, got up, and flew away. Later, around 2:30 AM, an entity appeared at Mrs. Lankford's window. The men fired again, and the entity fell from the roof. Another humanoid was seen in a tree. A third appearance occurred at 4:45 AM.

Hypothesis of Misidentification with Monkeys

This explanation, proposed by Major John E. Alber in September 1957, suggests escaped monkeys from the King circus. However, the article refutes this:
1. No monkey footprints were found.
2. Monkey ears are typically at eye level, unlike the pointed ears described. The Semnopithecus monkey is an exception but uncommon in circuses.
3. Monkeys jump, they don't float.
4. Monkeys are not described as tightrope walkers.
5. A monkey with clawed hands would have caused more damage to the mosquito net.

The Grand Duke Owl, A Flying Being

The article proposes the Grand Duke owl as a more plausible explanation. The Suttons described a small being with a round head and legs touching the ground, about six meters away. This could have been an owl in the dark. The 'clawed hand' seen could be the owl's talons or wing feathers. The owl was seen flying to a tree and then floating to the ground, consistent with an owl's flight pattern.

Owls are known to wait in trees and fly silently. The description of the being with arms spread could be an owl preparing to land. The owl's 'ear tufts' could be its erectile feathers. The scratching sounds on the roof are attributed to the owl's talons.

Reflections on Some Noises

Grinding noises on the roof are attributed to the owl's talons. The sound of metal when firing at the 'humanoids' could be bullets ricocheting off metal objects in the house or the owl's talons. The article mentions that a female Grand Duke owl's call can sound like a 'gueing' or 'bouho', and it's possible this was misinterpreted. It also references a Condon Commission case where repeated beeps were explained as owl hoots.

Nocturnal Beings

Grand Dukes are primarily active at dusk and dawn. They nest in March, incubate for 34 days, and young fly by May-June. Adults feed their young for nine weeks. They hunt day and night, resting in caves or trees. The article notes the timing of the sightings (around sunset and before sunrise) aligns with the owl's activity periods.

Stubborn Entities

The article questions why Grand Dukes would be interested in the Suttons' habitation. Owls hunt small prey abundant near farms. They can attack humans if their nest is approached. The presence of a nest or young owls could explain their persistence despite gunfire. The period of August to September is when Grand Dukes are feeding their young.

Phosphorescent Entities and Luminous Owls

The initial strange glow seen by the men could be the Grand Duke's throat pouch, which becomes visible when it calls. This could be a visual signal. The article suggests the glow might have been caused by the owl's excitement or the gunfire. A piece of aluminum foil found near the fence might have been illuminated, potentially explaining the glow. Some reports mention luminous owls observed between 1907 and 1908. The article explores the connection between owls, trees, and bioluminescent fungi. Eric Maillot observed bioluminescent white mycelium on dead branches. The bodies of the 'beings' were described as phosphorescent in the dark but metallic in the light. The more the witnesses fired, the more luminous the entity became, possibly linked to the owl ruffling its feathers when agitated.

Do Luminous Owls Exist or Are They a Cosmic Illusion?

Jean Sider is cited as denouncing explanations involving luminous owls, attributing them to Donald Menzel. The article questions Sider's dismissal of luminous owl reports, especially when he accepts extraterrestrial explanations. It notes that historical accounts of luminous owls exist from Great Britain, France, and Spain, suggesting the phenomenon is not region-specific. Increasing light pollution is also mentioned as a factor hindering observation. The possibility that witnesses simply didn't recognize the owl and called it an 'angel' or 'extraterrestrial' is raised.

Bioluminescence or Simple Reflection?

The entities were not green, as some headlines suggested; their eyes were described as phosphorescent yellow. The article posits that the green color was added later by the press. It questions whether the Hopkinsville beings were luminous themselves or simply illuminated by the farm's lights. The ventral and facial plumage of the Grand Duke owl, when smoothed and greased, could create a reflective effect. The luminosity of the eyes could be due to light reflecting off the iris.

Habitat of the Grand Duke

The Grand Duke belongs to the Strigidae family. The European Grand Duke is Bubo Bubo, and the American species is Bubo Virginianus. They are large owls, with males around 50 cm and females around 68 cm, and a wingspan of up to 1.60 meters. They can alter their shape and appearance. They inhabit varied landscapes, including forests and open areas near water. They nest in rocky areas, cliffs, or sometimes on the ground in bushes. They hunt in open or clear forest areas. Grand Dukes are found in North Africa, Scandinavia, Central Europe, Southern Europe, and the United States, including Kentucky.

Comparative Description: Alleged Humanoid vs. Supposed Grand Duke

• The article provides a detailed comparison:
• Size: Humanoid: 0.75-1.05m; Grand Duke: 0.50-0.68m.
• Head: Humanoid: bald, egg-shaped; Grand Duke: oval, yellowish-brown plumage.
• Ears: Humanoid: flat, pointed, not exceeding the skull, sticking out slightly; Grand Duke: two feather tufts resembling horns.
• Eyes: Humanoid: saucer-like, immense, 15 cm apart, yellowish-green phosphorescent, white rest of eye; Grand Duke: large, black pupils, yellow-orange iris reflecting light, large white discs around eyes.
• Mouth: Humanoid: simple line, no lips; Grand Duke: white line of feathers below beak.
• Body: Humanoid: no neck, long thin arms reaching almost to the ground; Grand Duke: no visible neck, long wings reaching the ground, body tapering downwards.
• Hands: Humanoid: very large with talons, human-like shape, unknown number of fingers, no thumb; Grand Duke: wingspan 1.60-1.90m, ending in flight feathers resembling clawed hands.
• Feet: Humanoid: not observed, but talons seen; walked without bending knees, stiff legs; Grand Duke: two small clawed feet, stiff legs.

The article concludes that the resemblances are too frequent to be mere coincidence, referencing a comic strip where humanoids were replaced by Grand Dukes.

The Problem of the Small Humanoid Drawing

Three reconstructions of the humanoids were made based on witness testimonies. The article questions the reliability of these drawings, noting that different people describe and draw the same object differently. A test conducted with the Grand Duke owl showed significant variations in drawings by five people. The initial drawings were made by the women, and the men's input later modified them, possibly influenced by Mrs. Lankford's dominant role.

Western Ambiance

The humanoids strongly resemble Grand Dukes. The Suttons' failure to recognize them is attributed to fear and anxiety, escalating throughout the evening. The gunfire and the touch of an entity by Billy R. Taylor heightened the fear.

The window where the men fired measured 86.7 cm high. The area targeted on the mosquito net corresponds to the owl's size. The article notes the absence of poultry or other birds on the farm. The extensive gunfire (200 cartridges) is questioned. The police report mentioned a hole in the mosquito net that looked like it was cut with a razor. The witnesses' stability was also questioned. Scratches on the mosquito net could be from the owl's talons.

Mysterious Disappearance of the Entities

Thousands of people visited the site the next day. The article suggests the Grand Dukes, being nocturnal, would have moved to a quieter location.

Conclusion

The article references an hypothesis from 'Phénomènes spatiaux N°11' suggesting a repulsive field around the UFOs and humanoids, allowing them to withstand bullets and fly. This is deemed an original but unproven hypothesis based on the existence of advanced extraterrestrial technology. The author reiterates that the possibility of terrestrial beings, like nocturnal raptors that can appear luminous, should be considered first. The misidentification with Grand Dukes is considered a reasonable hypothesis, with the bioluminescence aspect needing further investigation. The author regrets that investigators at the time were too focused on extraterrestrial explanations to pursue the owl theory.

Postscript

It is regrettable that no information is available about when Billy R. Taylor first spoke of the flying saucer, or if he linked it to the Flatwoods monster case. The article suggests Billy R. Taylor, who lived in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, might have been influenced by the Flatwoods case and could have influenced the Suttons. The author invites ufologists and skeptics to confirm or deny the Grand Duke owl hypothesis. He suggests checking photographs and films for evidence of owl pellets or feathers, which would confirm the owl theory, as the Suttons did not raise poultry. Finally, he recommends confirming meteor passage with astronomers and researching US military aircraft activity in Kentucky on August 21, 1955.

The article concludes with a dedication to Michel Figuet and a photo souvenir.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this article are the re-evaluation of classic UFO cases, the importance of considering terrestrial explanations, and the potential for misidentification. The editorial stance is clearly skeptical of extraterrestrial explanations for the Kelly-Hopkinsville case, strongly advocating for the Grand Duke owl hypothesis as the most plausible explanation. The author criticizes the ufological community for often overlooking simpler, more grounded explanations in favor of sensational extraterrestrial theories. The article emphasizes the need for rigorous investigation and a willingness to consider all possibilities, even those that might seem less exciting.

This issue of INFOrespace is dedicated to exploring the 1955 Kelly-Hopkinsville UFO incident and related phenomena, including the intriguing subject of luminous birds. It presents a detailed compilation of historical documents, witness accounts, and investigative findings, alongside scientific and folkloric perspectives.

The Kelly-Hopkinsville Incident The core of the issue focuses on the celebrated 1955 encounter in Kelly, Kentucky. It reprints newspaper articles, notably one from the Kentucky New Era dated August 22, 1955, detailing the bizarre story of a farmhouse raid by "little green men" from a spaceship. The article by Staff Writer Joe Dorris, described as the first in the nation, recounts how occupants of the Cecil (Lucky) Sutton farmhouse reported an encounter with 12 to 15 beings, approximately 4 feet tall, who emerged from a landed "space ship or flying saucer."

Investigating officers, including state troopers and local police, arrived at the scene but found it deserted. The occupants, identified as the Sutton family and a visitor named Billy Ray Taylor, described a confrontation where their gunfire had no effect on the beings. The beings were described as having huge eyes and disproportionately large hands, wearing what appeared to be metal plates. One account mentions a "huge hand" reaching down from the roof to grab Taylor by the hair.

Further details emerge from Annex 01, which includes additional reports and witness statements. It highlights the initial report made by two cars arriving at Hopkinsville police headquarters, the description of the beings, and the alleged battle. Deputy Sheriff Batts is quoted, noting that the occupants fired approximately four boxes of .22 pistol shells. A neighbor reportedly heard shooting but mistook it for fire-crackers. The report also mentions that two officers heard that the "little men" had reappeared around the Sutton home later that morning. Notably, city police desk sergeant Frank Dudas expressed his belief in the possibility of the story, referencing his own sighting of three flying saucers.

Annex 02 provides a "PLAN DE LA FERME SUTTON," a map of the farmhouse and its immediate vicinity, detailing key locations of the events described, such as where the first shot was fired, where creatures were seen, and the approximate position of a luminous spot on the grass.

Annex 03 presents maps of the Kelly-Hopkinsville area, including Fort Campbell and Fort Knox in Kentucky, USA, providing geographical context for the incident.

Annex 05, titled "De l'interprétation au portrait-robot" (From Interpretation to the Composite Sketch), delves into the visual representations of the humanoid figures. It presents an "unreleased composite sketch" of the humanoid seen at Kelly, created based on witness accounts and other representations. The issue posits that a "pro-HET" would see an extraterrestrial, while someone not influenced by ufology might see an owl or a chouette. It strongly suggests that the explanation of a misidentification with a Great Horned Owl (Bubo Virginianus) is plausible, noting that the owl's white feather bands under its beak can resemble a wide mouth, a feature noted in the descriptions of the beings.

The text also critiques the process of creating composite sketches, emphasizing that they are often influenced by the investigator's own biases and cultural expectations, and are far from being photographic representations of reality. It highlights how illustrations can distort reality, such as implying the beings used their feet with agility, which is questioned.

Luminous Birds Another significant section of the issue, particularly in Annex 06, explores the phenomenon of "LES OISEAUX LUMINEUX" (Luminous Birds). This section references an article from "LA NATURE," 1910, II, p. 270, which reports a curious sighting by a correspondent of "Le Chasseur Français" in the Pyrenees. The correspondent observed two lights in the sky with the intensity of electric lamps, accompanied by a loud humming sound. Initially believing them to be airplanes, he soon realized they were birds, described as being the size of a large hen. Local shepherds confirmed they were birds and had often seen them.

The "Bulletin de la société d'acclimatation" and the "Revue d'ornithologie" are cited for similar cases. The issue highlights extensive observations made in England between February 1907 and May 1908, documented by Mr. R. J. W. Durdy in the "Transactions of the Norfolk and Norwich Naturalist's Society." These luminous birds were identified as "Effrayes" (Barn Owls).

The text clarifies that the luminosity is not inherent to the bird itself but is a light attached to the plumage that persists even after the animal's death. It is suggested that this light may be due to luminous microbes acquired from decaying organic matter (animal or vegetable) or from tinder fungus (amadou). The article notes that tinder fungus can be phosphorescent, and dead fish invaded by microbes can also become luminous. It is proposed that an owl might inadvertently pick up these substances, for instance, by rubbing against tinder fungus when entering or leaving its tree hollow.

The phenomenon, observed in Spain and England, is suggested to be an ancient one, potentially explaining numerous legends and fantastic lights circulating in the atmosphere at night, which have led to supernatural explanations recorded by Sébillot in "Folklore de la France."

Bibliography and Sources The issue includes an extensive "LISTE DES SOURCES" (List of Sources) related to the Kelly-Hopkinsville case, featuring numerous books and articles from various authors and publications, spanning from 1955 to 1998. This list demonstrates the depth of research undertaken for the article.

Additionally, a section titled "SOURCES SUR LES RAPACES NOCTURNES" (Sources on Nocturnal Birds of Prey) provides a list of references related to ornithology, particularly concerning owls and nocturnal birds, from 1907 to 1977. This further supports the discussion on the potential misidentification of owls.

Annex 06 also includes a bulletin from F.A.D.A. N°1, Jean Louis Brodu, dated September 1983, Paris, referencing the "LA NATURE" article.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance The recurring themes in this issue are UFO phenomena, alien encounters, and the scientific and folkloric explanations surrounding them. There is a strong emphasis on documentation, historical research, and critical analysis of witness testimony and visual representations. The editorial stance appears to favor a rational, evidence-based approach, exploring possibilities such as misidentification and natural phenomena (like luminous birds) as explanations for anomalous events, while still acknowledging the intriguing nature of the primary case.

The issue also highlights the importance of interdisciplinary research, drawing from ornithology, folklore, and investigative journalism to provide a comprehensive understanding of the subjects covered. The detailed bibliographies underscore a commitment to thoroughness and academic rigor in exploring these complex topics.

This issue of "The Zoologist" features a significant section dedicated to "LA LUMINOSITE DE LA CHOUETTE BLANCHE" (The Luminosity of the White Owl), presented as an appendix to a report on ornithology in Norfolk from 1907. The content primarily consists of detailed accounts of luminous owl sightings and related phenomena, alongside discussions of potential explanations and misidentifications.

The Luminosity of the White Owl

The main article, attributed to "THE NATURALIST," presents a series of eyewitness testimonies regarding luminous owls, predominantly in the Norfolk region of the United Kingdom. The first account details an observation on February 3, 1907, by a father and son who witnessed a light hovering and moving rapidly for about twenty minutes. They initially mistook it for a car lamp. The light exhibited vertical ascents and rapid horizontal movements near the ground.

Further observations by the same witness occurred on March 1st and February 22nd of the same year. The March 1st sighting involved a light that suddenly stopped, ascended above trees, and then moved erratically, sometimes reaching heights of 20 to 40 feet. The witness, along with his son and three domestics, observed the phenomenon from a distance. At one point, two distinct lights were seen. The light then disappeared suddenly.

Later that evening, around 10:30 PM, the light reappeared, moving back and forth over a field. It approached within 50 yards of the observer's position. The witness used a long-range telescope but could only discern a "sort of large lamp."

Another account from February 22nd describes the luminous phenomenon again, witnessed by the narrator, his wife, and the châtelain's family. The light was observed moving along a valley and then suddenly ascended rapidly, disappearing from view.

Subsequent sightings on January 7th involved two luminous birds hunting over a valley for about twenty minutes. The birds separated, one flying south and the other north, passing overhead at an altitude of about sixty feet.

The article also references earlier reports, including one from 1866 in Cambridgeshire, and mentions that such luminous birds have been seen before. The general opinion in Norfolk attributed this luminosity to luminous "amadou" (tinder fungus) found on trees, particularly hawthorn. Mr. S. H. Long and Mr. M. C. Cooke are cited, with Cooke's "Introduction to the Study of Fungi" mentioning several agaric species that grow on dead wood and emit a light strong enough to read by.

Mr. W. P. Pycraft proposed an alternative theory: that the luminosity might be due to unknown fungi developing on the owl's feathers, citing the case of an affected goose. The author suggests that if the nesting sites of these luminous owls could be found, it might be possible to verify if they inhabit luminous tree hollows, advancing research in this area.

Further reports from February 1908 detail observations by Mr. L. C. Farman of a luminous Barn Owl over the Haddiscoe marshes. Farman described the light as extremely bright, like an electric light, though it faded when the bird moved away. He observed it on two consecutive nights. The article notes that these birds seem to cover significant distances during their nocturnal flights.

Sir Digby Pigott is mentioned as having brought these events to the attention of naturalists. The article also references the well-known case of the Twyford birds from 1907. Mr. H. Wormald reported seeing an exceptionally bright owl twice in March 1908 in Dercham. A luminous owl was also seen in Twyford in May 1908.

Mr. R. Purdy suggested that the owl might have lost its feathers, causing the luminosity to disappear. This was also speculated for the Haddiscoe owl. The article notes a connection between luminous trees and luminous owls, mentioning a luminous hawthorn stump found on Lord Lindley's land.

The author speculates that the owl's breast might be the primary source of luminosity, as it would be in constant contact with decaying wood in a tree hollow.

The "Chouette Histoire" of Two Twin Cases

This section, authored by Renaud Lecler, analyzes two cases often cited in UFO literature: Sutton (Kentucky) and Flatwood (Virginia), both occurring in September 1952. Lecler proposes that these sightings can be explained as misidentifications of nocturnal birds, specifically the Great Horned Owl (Grand-duc) for Kelly-Hopkinsville and the Barn Owl (chouette-effraie) for Sutton-Flatwood.

Lecler points out several coincidences between the two cases, including the names of witnesses (Suttons in both locations), the initial observation of a UFO-like object crossing the sky that turned out to be a bolide, and the impression of an "landing." The timing of the events, shortly after sunset, is also noted as similar.

For the Sutton-Flatwood case, Lecler suggests the "object" seen could be a meteor, confirmed by multiple witnesses at the time. The luminous ball on the ground might have been a vehicle, and the footprints could be from this vehicle. The "strange being" is explained as a misidentification of an owl (head and eyes) and a tree trunk (body). The blue-green flashes from the eyes are attributed to light reflections on the retina.

Lecler questions why Donald Keyhoe, in his work, presented the meteor explanation as certain but the owl explanation as only possible. He notes that the ATIC (Air Technical Intelligence Center) explained the Sutton-Flatwood case as a misidentification.

Regarding the Kelly-Hopkinsville case, Lecler reiterates the owl misidentification theory. He describes the Barn Owl's plumage (brownish-red face, white face, reddish color) which could explain why witnesses focused on the face. He also mentions the owl's habit of swaying its body, which could be interpreted as a threat display. The circular dark area around the head might be the entrance to a tree hollow where the owl nested.

Lecler addresses the physiological effects reported by witnesses in the Kelly-Hopkinsville case, such as agitation, throat inflammation, nausea, and vomiting. He suggests these could be due to a gas (possibly from decomposition), an allergic reaction to bird feathers, wood dust, or fungal spores, or psychosomatic reactions due to fear.

In his conclusion, Lecler expresses surprise that J. A. Hynek, a scientific advisor for the US Air Force on UFOs, did not have full access to the "Blue Book" archives. He reiterates that both cases are likely misidentifications of nocturnal raptors. He also questions whether the Kelly-Hopkinsville witnesses had heard of the Sutton-Flatwood case, suggesting it might have influenced their interpretation.

Humor

A cartoon depicts an alien being reminding other figures of "instructions: surround them and capture them," with a UFO in the background and various figures in military-like attire.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue is the investigation of unexplained aerial phenomena and unusual wildlife observations. The editorial stance appears to be one of rational inquiry, seeking scientific explanations for events that might otherwise be attributed to extraterrestrial or supernatural causes. The articles emphasize the importance of careful observation, accurate reporting, and the potential for misidentification in such cases. There is a clear effort to demystify phenomena like luminous owls and to connect them to known biological or environmental factors, while also acknowledging the role such observations may have played in folklore and popular accounts of unexplained events.

This issue of the magazine, titled "OVNI CERTAIN, PROBABLE OU EXPLIQUE ? !" (UFO Certain, Probable or Explained?!), features articles by Renaud Leclet and Gilles Munsch, with a referenced article by Nicolas Prantzos from "Ciel & Espace" No. 363 (August 2000). The magazine delves into UFO phenomena, comparative case studies, and scientific explanations for sightings.

Comparative Case Studies: Kelly-Hopkinsville and Sutton

The magazine presents a detailed comparison of the Kelly-Hopkinsville (Kentucky) and Sutton (Virginie) UFO cases. For each case, it outlines the location, date, time, duration of observation, witnesses, and details about the observed phenomena.

• Kelly-Hopkinsville Case (August 21, 1955):
• Location: An isolated farm near Kelly, 11 km from Hopkinsville, Kentucky.
• Date: August 21, 1955.
• Time: Started around 19:00, dusk.
• Duration: All night, with specific appearances at 19:30, 02:30, and 04:45.
• Witnesses: Mrs. Sutton, her children, 2 families, and 10 witnesses in total.
• Object: Described as a 'bolide' (fireball), possibly landed behind the farm, seen by Billy R. Taylor, a police officer, and military personnel.
• Entity Description:
• Height: 1.05 meters.
• Ears: Large, flappy, pointed at the top.
• Eyes: Saucer-like, immense, phosphorescent yellow, with a white iris, spaced about 15 cm apart.
• Mouth: A simple line from ear to ear, lower than the ears, no lips.
• Arms: Long, 'arm-like' without muscles, very large hands with talons.
• Feet: Not observed.
• Head: Bald, same color as the body, egg-shaped.
• Body: No neck, tapering slightly, silvery with a radium-like luminosity or fluorescent green.
• Noise: None detailed.
• Flight: Seemed to float.
• Movement: Walked with hands in the air, without bending knees.
• Aggressive Attitude: Spread wings, claws above 'Lucky' (presumably a dog).
• Witness Fear: Two witnesses fired a rifle; fear and flight from the domicile.
• Dogs: The Suttons' dogs barked.
• Physical Traces: A fluorescent green zone observed in the grass?
• Smell: No odor.
• Identification: No prior identification; compared to a Great Horned Owl.

• Sutton Case (September 12, 1952):
• Location: Near an isolated farm on a hill, 10 miles from Sutton, Flatwood.
• Date: September 12, 1952.
• Time: Around 19:15, dusk.
• Duration: No details, seen once at the beginning of the night.
• Witnesses: Mrs. May, her 2 sons, Gene Lemon, and 17 witnesses (7 to 10 reported).
• Object: Seen by Mrs. May's sons, thought to have landed behind the hill; seen by thousands of people.
• Entity Description:
• Height: 3 meters.
• Ears: No description.
• Eyes: Glowing orange-green with pale blue flashes, spaced about 25 cm apart, fixed gaze.
• Mouth: No description.
• Arms: No description.
• Feet: Not observed.
• Head: Red face?, spade-shaped, covered in sweat.
• Body: No neck, tapering slightly, described as a 'tree trunk'.
• Noise: A sort of whistling.
• Flight: The being floated in the air, in a circle.
• Movement: Not observed.
• Aggressive Attitude: Moved rapidly towards Lemon.
• Witness Fear: Literally terrorized, fled; physiological effects on young Lemon (agitated, weak, swollen throat); other witnesses experienced nausea and vomiting.
• Dogs: Lemon's dog barked.
• Physical Traces: Strange viscous substance on children's faces?
• Smell: Very unpleasant, almost suffocating smell that floated in the air.
• Identification: Mistaken for an owl by ATIC.

The Fermi Paradox and Extraterrestrial Intelligence

Gilles Munsch discusses the "Paradox of Fermi" in relation to an article by Nicolas Prantzos in "Ciel & Espace". He questions the assumption that human intelligence is exceptionally advanced, pointing out humanity's inability to cure most diseases or avoid self-destruction through weapons of mass destruction. Munsch critiques the reliance on "argument from authority" and suggests that the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) should be preceded by a reflection on our own level of intelligence.

He argues that the failure of SETI programs over 40 years does not definitively prove the absence of extraterrestrials, given the limited scope of the search and the difficulty in defining and detecting intelligence. Munsch also challenges the assertion that no traces of extraterrestrial civilizations have been found on Earth, suggesting that a systematic scientific search for such traces has not truly occurred.

The article explores the idea that if extraterrestrials exist and are superior, they might not necessarily invade but could influence or appropriate resources. The absence of such an invasion, as depicted in science fiction, is used to argue for humanity's solitude. However, Munsch also presents counterarguments, suggesting that our current understanding is limited and that future discoveries could alter this perspective.

He criticizes the tendency to dismiss possibilities due to a lack of evidence, emphasizing that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Munsch calls for a more open-minded scientific approach, encouraging the search for what can be found rather than what is expected.

Misidentification: Noctilucent Clouds and Lenticular Clouds

Renaud Leclet's article addresses the misidentification of natural phenomena as UFOs. He focuses on the photograph from Norway in 1907, initially hailed as the first UFO photo, but later explained as luminous noctilucent clouds. The article details the characteristics of noctilucent clouds:

• Appearance: Appear at twilight, illuminated by the sun from below the horizon.
• Color: Generally bluish or silvery, sometimes orange or red.
• Altitude: Average altitude of 82 km.
• Speed: Can move at speeds exceeding 500 km/h.
• Composition: Fine particles, possibly cosmic dust.
• Rarity: Very rare, not observed in France but possible in summer.

Leclet also discusses lenticular clouds, which can also be mistaken for UFOs, citing examples from France, Argentina, and Spain. He concludes that a simple lenticular cloud against a background of luminous clouds can be easily transformed into a "flying saucer from another world."

Conclusion

The issue concludes by emphasizing that the 1907 Norway photo was likely taken in 1909 and shows multiple luminous clouds, not a single UFO. It highlights how easily such phenomena can be misinterpreted and presented as evidence of extraterrestrial visitation. The article also includes extensive references to ufological and meteorological sources.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently adopts a critical and analytical stance towards UFO phenomena. It prioritizes scientific explanations and evidence-based reasoning, often debunking sensational claims by identifying misidentified natural phenomena or questioning the methodology of ufological research. The articles encourage a rational approach to the study of UFOs and extraterrestrial intelligence, urging readers to consider the limitations of current knowledge and the potential for misinterpretation. The Fermi Paradox is presented as a complex question that requires introspection about human intelligence itself, rather than solely focusing on the search for aliens.

This issue of the magazine, identified by number 93 and dated March 2001, focuses on the controversial Roswell autopsy film and explores various UFO-related topics, including potential hoaxes, alternative explanations for sightings, and media manipulation. The primary articles delve into the origins and authenticity of the Roswell autopsy footage, analyze a specific radar-visual UFO case near Metz, and discuss physical phenomena that can be mistaken for extraterrestrial craft.

The Roswell Autopsy Hoax: A New Lead

The article "UNE NOUVELLE PISTE POUR LA FAUSSE AUTOPSIE DE L'EXTRATERRESTRE DE ROSWELL" by Raoul Robé revisits the 1995 TFI broadcast of the alleged alien autopsy film from Roswell. It questions the film's authenticity, noting that in 1995, TFI aired a video of an ET autopsy supposedly recovered from the 1947 Roswell crash. A journalistic investigation by Nicolas Maillard suggests the involvement of a German individual, Volker Spielberg, as a potential financer of the 'fake' film. The article references previous information from "Mystères de l'Est" and notes that despite years of discussion, the film's author remains undiscovered.

The piece highlights how American science fiction cinema has utilized the Roswell crash story, citing films like "Hangar 18" (1980), "The Return" (1980), and "Roswell: The Mysteries" (1994). A particularly interesting new lead is presented as Mike Gray's "Onde de choc" (Underground: A military base, 3 ETs captured by the military), a lesser-known video work. The author suggests this film might have inspired the creators of the Roswell autopsy video. "Onde de choc" reportedly depicts the recovery of small, bald humanoids in 1947, and an autopsy performed on one occupant by military personnel in a subterranean base. The ETs, aided by artists and Native Americans, escape into the Mojave Desert and flee in a large spherical spaceship. The article points out the similarity of the autopsy scene to the TFI video and notes that the film's music was created by Tangerine Dream, raising the question of whether Spielberg was inspired by this 1982 film to develop his lucrative 'canular' through Ray Santilli.

The author also recalls an ARTE debate on August 29, 1995, concerning the Roswell video, and suggests Jean-Teddy Filippe as a potential candidate for its creation. Filippe, presented alongside scientists and journalists on the show hosted by Michel Polac, is described as a filmmaker who specializes in 'fake documentaries.'

The Metz Radar Case: Helicopter or UFO?

The article "METZ: RENCONTRE RAPPROCHEE AVEC CORRELATION RADAR" by Renaud Leclet and Eric Maillot examines a UFO case reported on August 6, 1998, near Gravelotte, France, which was correlated with military radar data from Drachenbronn. An investigation by SOS OVNI suggested the object was a flying craft with a conical spotlight. The authors initially considered the hypothesis of a helicopter, noting the proximity of military zones and airfields, including Mars-la-Tour and Metz-Frescaty. They analyze the object's speed, estimated between 130 and 296 km/h, which is consistent with a helicopter. The absence of radar altitude data is discussed, with the possibility that the craft was flying at a very low altitude, masked by local terrain and radar coverage, similar to cases involving military helicopters operating in 'blackout' conditions.

The article discusses the possibility of the object being a military helicopter from the ALAT (Aviation Légère de l'Armée de Terre) or the Gendarmerie Nationale. They note that the Metz area is equipped with powerful new projectors, which could explain the visual aspect. The authors express skepticism about the UFO nature of the event, citing an opinion from M. Thouanel that the Metz affair has "nothing to do with a UFO." They contrast this with SOS OVNI's continued belief in the UFO hypothesis, despite the evidence suggesting a conventional explanation.

Photo Mystère! and Physical Phenomena

Another piece, "Photo Mystère !" by Gilles Munsch, recounts a personal experience in July 1999, where the author and companions claim to have had an unusual encounter, possibly a "different kind of encounter," involving spheres of opalescent white. They describe the entities as avoiding direct contact and the spheres as appearing one by one. The article also touches upon the detection of these entities via electromagnetic waves and their presence in certain regions, particularly in South America.

The article "EURÊKA: On Veut Nous Imiter !!" by Gilles Munsch, and a response from Jean-Jacques Velasco of Cnes, addresses the question of physical phenomena that can explain UFO observations. Velasco lists numerous natural and artificial phenomena that are often mistaken for UFOs, including meteors, satellites, zeppelins, advertising blimps, civil and military aircraft, and atmospheric balloons. He acknowledges the possibility of life developing on other planets but states there is no proof of extraterrestrial visitation.

The section "S'il en existe, comment fonctionnent les détecteurs de mensonges?" by Henrique Sequeira, discusses lie detectors and their physiological basis, such as perspiration and galvanic skin response, which are used to detect stress and deception.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently questions the authenticity of sensational UFO claims, particularly the Roswell autopsy film, suggesting media manipulation and the influence of filmmakers specializing in 'fake documentaries.' There is a clear inclination towards rational explanations for reported UFO sightings, as seen in the analysis of the Metz radar case, where a helicopter is favored over a UFO. The publication also explores the scientific and psychological aspects of UFO phenomena, including the potential for misidentification and the mechanisms of deception detection. The editorial stance appears to be one of critical inquiry, seeking evidence-based explanations while acknowledging the public's fascination with the unknown.

This issue of "Revue de Presse" (Press Review) presents a collection of articles primarily focused on the phenomenon of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), exploring various aspects from potential explanations to journalistic investigations and historical accounts. The publication date appears to span from January 2000 to potentially later in 2000, based on the dates of the articles reviewed.

Article 1: "Quels phénomènes psychiques expliquent les fabulations à propos d'OVNIS ?" (What psychic phenomena explain the fabrications about UFOs?)

This lead article, authored by Isabelle Dumas, critically examines the phenomenon of UFO reports. It suggests that many sightings can be attributed to natural phenomena, psychological factors, and journalistic sensationalism rather than extraterrestrial craft. The author highlights how astronomical events, such as planetary conjunctions or the moon's position, can be misinterpreted. The article also points to the pressure on experts and media to report sensational stories, leading to potential inaccuracies or 'fabulations.' It critiques the tendency for 'experts' to be overly eager to present findings, sometimes resulting in flawed conclusions. The piece also touches upon the issue of information being poorly cited or plagiarized in UFO-related publications.

Article 2: "Si vous n'aviez pas tout compris ..." (If you hadn't understood everything...)

Written by Gilles Munsch, this article appears to be a follow-up or a critical analysis of a previous investigation or publication, possibly related to the 'Operation Saros' case. Munsch questions the methodology and timeline of certain UFO investigations, particularly those involving the 'Saros cycle.' He raises specific questions about the timing of investigations and the potential for coincidences, such as the involvement of individuals with similar names in different UFO-related activities. The article delves into the specifics of a case involving a couple and a UFO in Laville-aux-Bois, questioning the SEPRA's involvement and the consistency of their methods.

Article 3: "Revue de Presse (zone CNEGU)"

This section compiles a list of articles related to UFOs and other aerial phenomena, sourced from various newspapers. It categorizes these articles into "Articles urologiques" (Ufological Articles) and "Liste d'articles connexes aux ovnis" (List of articles related to UFOs). The ufological articles cover a range of topics, including general belief in UFOs, historical sightings in specific French regions (Poncey-sur-l'ignon, Grancey-sur-Ource, Marliens), and profiles of UFO researchers. The related articles cover atmospheric entries, lightning, hailstones, kites, drones, and asteroids, suggesting an attempt to contextualize UFO sightings within broader aerial phenomena.

Article 4: "Des fusées dans le ciel de Lorraine ? Une boule de feu mystérieuse a été aperçue au-dessus de Nancy"

This article, from "L'Est Républicain" in 1946, reports on a mysterious fireball observed over Nancy. It details witness accounts describing luminous objects, possibly mistaken for rockets or meteors. The article includes observations from various individuals, including a student and a railway employee, and notes that meteorological services did not record any unusual activity. The phenomenon is described as two luminous globes connected by a rectilinear line, moving at high speed without sound.

Article 5: "Entre Marsannay-la-Côte et Velars Mystérieux objet lumineux..."

Published in "Le Bien Public" in July 1999, this article reports on a mysterious luminous object observed over Marsannay-la-Côte. An inhabitant reported seeing a single, bright object moving irregularly in the sky. The observer contacted the local air base, but the object remained unidentified as radars did not detect it.

Article 6: "Un O.V.N.I. sur la route des crêtes"

This piece from "L'Est Républicain" in June 2000 describes an encounter with a UFO on a scenic route. A witness reported seeing a luminous object resembling an inverted saucer moving rapidly before disappearing. The article speculates whether it was a natural phenomenon or a spacecraft, leaning towards the latter.

Article 7: "Le ciel de Lorraine traversé par de mystérieux météores"

This article from "L'Est Républicain" in 1946 details reports of mysterious meteors over Lorraine, similar to the Nancy sighting. It describes luminous objects and their characteristics, including phosphorescent trails. The article notes that the phenomenon was observed by multiple inhabitants and provides detailed descriptions from a journalist.

Article 8: "Qui a vu l'OVNI ?"

Published in "L'Est Républicain" in June 2000, this article reports on an unexplained aerial phenomenon observed over Villers Semouse and Charleville-Mézières. The Centre d'études OVNI France (CEOF) is seeking witnesses to two triangular objects that flew at low altitude with unusual sounds. Similar sightings were reported in southern France and Corsica.

Article 9: "Un OVNI dans le ciel de Toul?"

From "L'Est Républicain" in June 2000, this article recounts a sighting by three teenagers in Toul who described a luminous object resembling an inverted saucer. The object had red, blue, and green lights and moved silently close to the rooftops.

Article 10: "Le décès de Jimmy Guieu"

This article is an obituary and tribute to Jimmy Guieu, a prominent figure in French ufology and science fiction. It highlights his pioneering work in establishing the first French UFO research association, his prolific writing career, and his influence on the public perception of UFOs and extraterrestrials. The article notes his conviction about a conspiracy of silence regarding UFOs and his support for controversial cases. It also mentions his passing in January 2000 at the age of 76.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the investigation and interpretation of UFO sightings. There is a clear editorial stance that leans towards skepticism and the search for rational explanations, often contrasting with sensationalist reporting. The articles frequently question the validity of UFO claims, proposing astronomical, psychological, or misidentification-based explanations. While acknowledging the existence of unexplained phenomena, the publication emphasizes the need for rigorous investigation and critical analysis. The inclusion of historical cases alongside contemporary reports suggests an effort to provide a comprehensive overview of the UFO phenomenon in France. The tribute to Jimmy Guieu also reflects an engagement with the history and key figures of French ufology, even while maintaining a critical perspective on some of his more speculative theories.

This issue of Le Figaro, dated June 5, 2000, features a cover story titled "L'étrange dîner des ufologues" (The Strange Dinner of Ufologists). The article discusses the ongoing interest and investigation into Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) in France and globally.

The Ufologists' Gathering

The main article details the monthly meetings of UFO enthusiasts in Paris, held at the Café Vrai Mélodie. These gatherings serve as a platform for sharing information, discussing recent sightings, and exchanging views on the phenomenon. The article highlights the passion of these individuals, who range from firm believers in extraterrestrial life to those who simply question unexplained aerial phenomena.

Historical and Recent Sightings

The piece delves into several historical and contemporary UFO cases. It mentions an observation from September 12, 1621, by Pierre l'Estole, involving white clouds moving with remarkable speed. A more recent event from June 24, 1952, at the Parc des expositions, is recounted by Henri Chapoulek, who claims to have seen a bright round object. The article also references a 1995 incident where an airbus reportedly encountered a dark, rectangular mass. The region of Seine-et-Marne is noted as being particularly prone to strange aerial phenomena.

Expert Opinions and Investigations

Jean-Jacques Velasco, director of SEPRA (Service d'expertise des phénomènes atmosphériques), an official French organization under CNES, is quoted extensively. He emphasizes that while many UFO sightings can be explained by natural phenomena like optical illusions or atmospheric conditions, some cases remain unexplained. Velasco denounces "disinformation" and highlights the serious nature of the investigations conducted by SEPRA, which has processed over 2000 official reports.

Thierry Rocher, president of SOS Cani le-de-Pranos, also discusses the work of ufologists in investigating and cross-referencing reports. He mentions that investigations involve checking atmospheric conditions, astronomical and aeronautical news, and even analyzing soil and plant samples.

The article also touches upon the announcement of the closure of a British UFO bureau due to a lack of sightings, which is met with skepticism by French specialists. Jean-Luc Lemaire, a private investigator, and Alain Blanchari, a ufologist, suggest that this might be a misrepresentation or a conflict within the organization, rather than a genuine decline in UFO activity.

The Sézanne Case

A separate section discusses an unexplained phenomenon reported in Sézanne, where a witness's testimony was deemed credible by gendarmes and a CNES expert. Despite the credibility, the exact nature of what the witness saw on January 10 remains unknown, with the witness's identity being kept confidential.

Historical UFOs and the COMETA Report

Another article, "Londres : la « pénurie d'ovnis » jugée ridicule en France" (London: The 'UFO Shortage' Judged Ridiculous in France), critiques the British report and discusses the French perspective on UFOs. It references the work of Jean-Luc Lemaire and Jean-Jacques Velasco, who argue against the idea of a UFO crisis.

A third piece, "Réflexions sur le Rapport COMETA" (Reflections on the COMETA Report), analyzes a report by the COMETA group, which is described as a remarkable and courageous work on the reality of UFO phenomena. The author, Gérard Demarcq, praises the interdisciplinary and international nature of the report and its attempt to lift the taboo surrounding the subject. However, Demarcq also points out some contradictions within the report, particularly regarding the discussion of exobiology and the hypothesis of extraterrestrial civilizations.

A 17th Century Observation

An extended section details a 17th-century observation by a Franciscan monk, Jacques Fodere, in Besançon. The account, reproduced from an original text, describes a luminous phenomenon observed on January 23, 1603. The article includes a map showing the traced path of the object over Besançon and discusses the historical context of such observations, linking them to religious veneration and unexplained events.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue consistently emphasizes the ongoing mystery and scientific interest surrounding UFO phenomena. There is a clear stance against sensationalism and misinformation, advocating for rigorous investigation and open-mindedness. The articles highlight the efforts of official bodies like SEPRA and dedicated researchers in trying to understand these unexplained events, while also acknowledging the limitations of current knowledge and the possibility of natural explanations for many sightings. The recurring theme is that while the number of reported sightings might fluctuate, the phenomenon itself remains a subject worthy of serious study.

This issue of 'Le Pêle-mêle' (pages 125-136) from August 1999 delves into a variety of intriguing topics related to unexplained aerial phenomena, historical mysteries, and scientific analysis. The content includes reader contributions, analysis of photographic and video evidence, and discussions on historical aircraft and astronomical events.

Analysis of the COMETA Report and UFO Contact Scenarios

The first section features a commentary by G. DEMARCQ on a report, likely from the COMETA committee, which discusses UFO phenomena. DEMARCQ suggests that the interpretation of UFO behavior is limited by our inability to understand their perspective. He posits that UFOs are not aggressive extraterrestrials from distant stars but rather 'predecessors' or 'initiators' from Earth's past, now cautious due to humanity's technological advancement. He dismisses the idea of communicating with bacteria in asteroid belts and questions the necessity of biological evolution on Earth, attributing it to random chance.

DEMARCQ also touches upon the possibility of past bacterial life on Mars and the limitations of detecting exoplanets. He references Annex 6, which discusses the antiquity of the UFO phenomenon, and suggests that Christiane Piens' work should have been cited. Despite some contradictions and naiveté in the report, DEMARCQ believes it is valuable for stimulating public and political discussion, emphasizing that the study of UFOs is an exciting and worthwhile endeavor for scientists.

Photo Mystery: The "Vilain Petit Debunker" Challenge

Pages 126 and 127 present a 'Photo Mystery' featuring a photograph contributed by Thierry ROCHER, a former member of CNEGU. Readers are challenged to analyze the image within five minutes to determine if it depicts a genuine celestial phenomenon or something explainable, earning them the title of 'VPD' (Vilain Petit Debunker).

Letters to the Editor: Debating the Kazincbarcika Video

Pages 129-131 contain a significant exchange regarding a video from Kazincbarcika, Hungary, filmed on July 8, 1996. Jean-Claude Néglais, an investigator for the Groupe Privé Ufologique Nancéien, writes in response to an article by Gilles Munsch. Néglais offers an alternative interpretation to Munsch's analysis of the video, which showed a luminous, blurred object. Néglais suggests that the phenomenon was not an unidentified flying object but rather a common bird, likely a swift, flying very close to the camera. He explains that the flash used during the observation, combined with the bird's rapid movement and proximity to the lens, would create a blurred, overexposed image that could be mistaken for something unusual.

Munsch, in his response, acknowledges Néglais's perspicacity and reveals that he had a similar hypothesis, which he had been investigating. He recounts his own experiments with swifts and pigeons, noting that their rapid wing movements often escape camera sensors, and when captured, the wings appear blurred and less contrasted than the bird's body. He concludes that it is highly probable that a bird was the cause of the visual impression, attributing it to the limitations of camera technology in capturing such fast-moving subjects.

Munsch also discusses other potential sources of UFO misinterpretations, such as lens flares and reflections, citing previous publications by 'la ligne Bleue'. He expresses his intention to return to this subject with more examples and detailed experiments. He defends his approach, stating that while he respects witnesses, he also believes in critically analyzing phenomena that can be explained by mundane causes, contrasting this with ufologists who he feels too readily accept extraordinary explanations.

Other Brief Reports and Mentions

Pages 132-136 contain various short reports and mentions:

• A cartoon on page 132 humorously depicts a person filming a bird, with sound effects 'Bip! BIP!', suggesting the bird as a potential 'UFO' subject.

• 'Le Pêle-mêle' (The Hodgepodge) section on pages 135-136 presents several brief items:
• 'Appel à témoin' (Call for Witnesses): An appeal from the Centre d'Etude Ovni France for witnesses to a UFO sighting in Vivier-au-Court on February 26, 1999, described as a large, bright orange ball.
• 'Météorite' (Meteorite): A report from July 5, 1999, about a giant meteorite crossing the sky over New Zealand, observed by thousands and disintegrating into fragments.
• 'Glenrock aux Soucoupes Volantes' (Glenrock at the Flying Saucers): A note about the rock band Glenrock returning to a cafe named 'aux soucoupes volantes' where they had their first concert.
• 'O.v.n.i.' (UFO): An announcement about the Centre Européen d'Etude des Phénomènes Aériens (CEEPA) and the Centre d'Etudes Ovni France collaborating on an observation campaign for shooting stars and inviting public reports of unusual aerial observations.
• 'L'avenir des Zeppelins' (The Future of Zeppelins): A summary of a documentary about the history of dirigibles, mentioning their use as aircraft carriers in the 1930s and questioning if these images influenced UFO witness accounts.
• 'La soucoupe volante de René Couzinet' (René Couzinet's Flying Saucer): An article discussing René Couzinet's lenticular aircraft design from 1956, which was not commercially supported but was adopted by UFO enthusiasts. It details the aircraft's specifications and notes Couzinet's tragic suicide in 1956.
• A mention of a French fairground operator, M. Grimaldi, who built a circular-winged aircraft, with a call for archival information.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical analysis of UFO sightings, the exploration of potential mundane explanations for anomalous aerial phenomena, and the historical context of UFO reports and related technologies. The editorial stance appears to favor a skeptical yet open-minded approach, encouraging critical thinking and rigorous investigation while respecting witness testimony. There is a clear emphasis on debunking misinterpretations and distinguishing between genuine mysteries and phenomena that can be explained by known science or natural occurrences. The publication seems to aim at educating its readers about the complexities of UFO research and encouraging a more informed public discourse on the subject.

This issue of 'Mystères de l'Est' is a French-language publication focusing on UFOs, paranormal phenomena, and related investigations. It contains a variety of articles, reports, and book reviews, offering a deep dive into unexplained events and theories.

Sherlock Holmes in Orbit

This section, authored by Raoul Robé, explores how the famous detective Sherlock Holmes has been incorporated into science fiction and fantasy narratives. It highlights an anthology by Mike Resnick and Martin H. Greenberg that features Holmes in sci-fi settings. One story, "The Affair of the Geometric Figures in the Fields" by Vonda N. McIntyre, places Holmes and Watson in the Surrey countryside investigating crop circles, with the narrative suggesting it was a farmer's hoax orchestrated to create a lucrative canular, even involving a fake UFO abduction of Sir Conan Doyle. Another story, "The Extraterrestrial in Irregular Situation" by Anthony R. Lewis, is a pure science fiction piece. The article also mentions Yves Varende's book "Sherlock Holmes," which includes unpublished cases, such as "The Phantom of the Locho," where Holmes is abducted by aliens and subjected to a medical examination, resulting in a missing time experience. The author notes a statistic suggesting one in 50 Americans may have encountered similar strange creatures.

The Sky of Lorraine is Streaked with Mysterious Meteors (Archives)

This report, by Gilles Ourand, details an observation from September 13, 1946, near Longwy, France. Witnesses reported seeing mysterious meteors described as two luminous globes connected by a phosphorescent line, moving horizontally and straight at high speed. A journalist from Nancy provided a detailed account, describing the objects as similar to veiled electric arcs and estimating their altitude at around 10,000 meters. The phenomenon was also reported in the Midi Libre newspaper.

An Ummite Identified?

This section raises questions about whether the CNEGU (Comité Nord-Est des Groupes Ufologiques) has been infiltrated by 'Ummite' extraterrestrials who have allegedly been on Earth since 1950. It ponders why these beings, with advanced knowledge, would be interested in ancient monuments. The article specifically questions if Patrice Vachon, a former CNEGU member, is one of these infiltrated Ummites, referencing his book on megaliths.

About Ummo

Authored by Patrick Faure, this brief piece notes that Jean Marc Gillot found the primary meaning of the 'Ummite' sigle in a French-Russian dictionary as a conjunction of coordination 'ET' (meaning 'and', 'while', 'even', 'therefore', etc., depending on context). This is presented as a possible clue towards a canular (hoax) theory, and it's also mentioned that 'Ummo' is associated with the astrological sign of Pisces.

A Russian UFO

Reported by Christine Zwygart, this article from France 2's Teletext on January 27, 2001, describes an incident in Siberia. An airport in southern Siberia had to close its traffic for an hour and a half due to a UFO. The crew of an Ilyushin-76 refused to take off because a luminous object was positioned above the runway. Pilots of another cargo plane also refused to land for the same reason. The UFO disappeared after an hour and a half, according to Interfax.

CNEGU

This section, by Le Cocgu, provides an update on the CNEGU's activities. It lists the dates and locations of their three sessions in 2000 (Villars-Santenoge, Bogny-sur-Meuse, Val d'Ajol) and the first session of 2001 (Fain-les-Moutiers), with future sessions planned for Gérardmer and a 70th session. The CNEGU has been conducting its work for 23 years, and any motivated researcher can participate.

Atmospheric Re-entry?

This report, from L'Est Républicain on June 9, 2000, details an unusual phenomenon observed on June 7, around 10:10 PM, in the Epinal region (Vosges, France). The luminous phenomenon, moving on a north/north-east axis, was suggested by the Astronomy Club of the MJC d'Epinal to be either a meteor or a satellite re-entry. A similar observation in Seine-et-Marne corroborated the phenomenon at high altitude.

Rumors of Fake Moon Landings

This article, by Eric Maillot, addresses persistent rumors questioning the authenticity of the 1969 moon landing photos. It states that M. Lheureux wrote a book casting doubt on the photos, but the review "Science et Avenir" from January 2001 published an article debunking these claims. The article explains that supposed photographic inconsistencies are merely optical effects. A website is provided for further information.

Artificial Re-entry

Authored by Eric Maillot, this report from November 27, 2000, describes observations of a luminous phenomenon in southeastern Spain, the Balearic Islands, Sardinia, and near Rome. An observation in Graulhet (Tarn, France) may correspond to the same phenomenon. The trajectory of object 99-61B (debris from the Long March rocket), as predicted by NORAD, explains these observations. A map by the Spanish Photographic Meteor Network (SPMN) is mentioned, along with results from a study published in "Tribuna de Astronomia-Universo" and "WGN."

"I am certain I saw a UFO"

This personal account by Christine C., written by Eric Maillot, describes an experience on a Sunday afternoon in Bandol. While enjoying the view from her apartment, she observed a fiery ball, about 2 meters long, moving horizontally, ascending, and then disappearing over a hill. She described it as not falling like a meteorite but moving with intent. She heard a slight whistling sound. Her husband was awakened, but the object was gone. She contacted Météo-France and the gendarmes, who had also received similar calls. Later, she learned that other people in the South-East had witnessed the same phenomenon, describing it as a fire ball guided by an unknown force.

A UFO at 100 Meters

This section continues Christine C.'s account. She describes the UFO as a fiery ball, the shape of a teardrop, about 2 meters long. It moved horizontally, ascended, and jumped over a hill before disappearing. She noted a slight whistling sound. She contacted Météo-France and the gendarmes. It is revealed that on that Sunday, firefighters received dozens of calls reporting a UFO over Sainte-Victoire. The article mentions that the air traffic control agency for Southern France confirmed receiving similar calls from various regions. Two hypotheses are proposed: a meteorite or a satellite disintegrating in the atmosphere. However, the article questions how the object could have ascended and descended gently, suggesting a more intriguing possibility of a spacecraft filled with extraterrestrials.

Observation

This report by Gilles Munsch details a "curious" phenomenon observed in Six-Fours-les-Plages on August 5, 2000. Two non-blinking orange luminous points moved rapidly across the sky. They were observed at an azimuth of 165°/N to 235° N and at an angular height of 25-30°, lasting for 5 to 6 seconds. The trajectory was parallel to the horizon, with no particular effects noted, except for the presence of a thin crescent moon.

Information Search

This section, by Gilles Munsch, is a request for information regarding an observation from late summer or early autumn 1949, near Meuilley, France. It concerns two 'S' shaped craft observed at close range by five adults and a child, who is now seeking information about this event.

Erratum

This section, by Le Cnegu, corrects several errors found in the "Marliens" document. It clarifies a typo in the organization name (GEPA instead of GEPAN), a contradiction in the distance of earth clods projected (30m vs. 25m), and a date error (1878 instead of 1978). It also provides a supplementary reference for the Marliens case.

Canular

Authored by Eric Maillot and Renaud Lecket, this article discusses a segment on the TV channel "M6" on April 27, 2001, which was a staged canular (hoax) created by the inhabitants of Revel (38). The report involved a fake witness, a fake ground UFO, and fake military personnel, all designed to attract media attention for a festive evening. This is presented as part of a series of similar hoaxes over the past three months.

OPERATION SAROS

This section introduces "OPERATION SAROS (1976-1994) – Des ovnis reproductibles, une hypothèse vérifiée," a publication by the C.N.E.G.U. (Comité Nord-Est des Groupes Ufologiques). The CNEGU, established in 1978, has compiled UFO observation cases from its operational zone (departments 08, 21, 52, 54, 55, 57, 67, 68, 90, and Luxembourg) into an annual catalog. The "Operation SAROS" document specifically analyzes the strong case year of 1976, presenting a testable and verifiable hypothesis. The publication aims to be instructive and surprising.

DOSSIER MARLIENS

This section announces the availability of "DOSSIER MARLIENS," a special publication of the C.N.E.G.U. This document is 63 pages long and is available for purchase. The cover art features a UFO, a question mark, and insect-like figures, with the year 1998 indicated.

BIBLE ET OVNI

This is a promotional section for the book "BIBLE ET OVNI: la grande révélation du III millénaire ?" by Yannick Auffret and Gérard Demarcq. The book, published by CHEMINEMENTS, is described as a documented study that provides revelations about the UFO phenomenon, its material reality, biblical testimonies, and ancient sources. It claims to reveal the scientific and historical content of deciphered biblical texts, the terrestrial origin of UFOs, the true identity of OVNIs, and the history of a 45,000-year-old civilization with advanced space technology. The book is presented as bridging the gap between "Bible" and "UFOs." It is available for pre-order at 135 Francs, with a special pre-publication price of 115 Francs.

INVITATION: PARISIAN UFOLOGICAL MEALS

This section announces that Parisian ufological meals will be organized on the first Tuesday of each month. The location is MELODINE at 21, Rue de Beaubourg, 75003 Paris. These gatherings are open to everyone, with no prior membership required. The price is affordable, and discussions cover ufological and paranormal news, with the exchange of documents, information, and ideas. The meetings start at 7 PM. Contact information for Gérard Lebat and Thierry Rocher is provided for additional details.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue of 'Mystères de l'Est' revolve around UFO sightings, alleged extraterrestrial encounters, and the investigation of unexplained phenomena. The magazine appears to maintain an open but critical stance, presenting various cases and theories while also acknowledging the possibility of hoaxes and providing scientific explanations where available. There's a clear interest in historical cases as well as contemporary reports, and a focus on the work of ufological organizations like the CNEGU. The publication also highlights books and events related to the field, suggesting a commitment to informing and engaging its readership on these complex subjects.