Ovni Presence - No 30 - Juin 1984

Magazine Overview

Title: ovni présence
Issue: No. 30
Date: June 1984 (Second trimester 1984)
Volume: Ninth year
Publisher: Association d'Etude sur les Soucoupes Volantes (AESV)
Country of Publication: Switzerland
Language: French
ISSN: 0223-0976
Price: 20 FF + 5 FS

This issue of 'ovni présence' is published by the Association d'Etude sur les Soucoupes Volantes (AESV), a non-profit organization founded in 1974 dedicated to the objective and rational study of the UFO phenomenon and the dissemination of ufological information. The magazine emphasizes that the views expressed in its articles are solely the responsibility of their authors and strictly prohibits reproduction, translation, or adaptation without authorization.

Table of Contents

The table of contents highlights several articles and features:

• EN COUVERTURE (On the Cover): E.T., special guest star, phoning home!
• LE JEU DES SOIXANTE-DIX-SEPT ERREURS (The Game of Seventy-Seven Errors) by Jacques Scornaux
• Massacre à la tronçonneuse... (Chainsaw Massacre...) by Jacques Scornaux
• VIVA VIVA LA VIE: Un film du 4ème type ? (Long Live Life: A 4th Kind Film?) by Jacques Scornaux
• TANT VA LA CRUCHE A L'EAU... (The pitcher goes to the well too often...) by Thierry Pinvidic
• COMMUNIQUE (Communique) by Thierry Pinvidic
• LA NOUVELLE LIGNE OP: A 24 h/day hotline by Perry Petrakis
• SPECIAL DROIT DE REPONSE (Special Right of Reply): De quelques extraits choisis
• LA VISION DE MARTIN (Martin's Vision) by Marc Hallet
• L'OVNI SUIVEUR DE V2 NE REPOND PLUS: Petite entreprise d'assainissement (The V2 Follower UFO No Longer Responds: Small sanitation company) by Jean Giraud

Article Analysis

LE JEU DES SOIXANTE-DIX-SEPT ERREURS (The Game of Seventy-Seven Errors)

This extensive article by Jacques Scornaux provides a highly critical analysis of Rémy Chauvin's book "Voyage outre-terre." Scornaux begins by expressing disappointment, stating that the book is filled with a "mass of factual errors, errors of reasoning, exaggerations, and deformations." He criticizes Chauvin's choice to present UFO information through a fictional narrative, arguing that it blurs the lines between reality and fantasy, especially for an audience already prone to confusion on the subject.

Scornaux meticulously dissects various claims made by Chauvin, often referencing other ufological works and scientific studies to refute them. Key points of criticism include:

• Methodology: Chauvin's reliance on a novel format is deemed inappropriate for a subject where certainty is scarce, potentially increasing confusion.
• Factual Inaccuracies: Scornaux identifies numerous specific errors, such as misinterpretations of witness testimonies, incorrect historical accounts, and flawed statistical arguments.
• Misrepresentation of Evidence: The reviewer disputes Chauvin's interpretations of phenomena like the Bavic case, orthoteny, and the 'isocélie' hypothesis, citing refutations from other researchers.
• Selective Use of Sources: Chauvin is accused of ignoring or misrepresenting scientific consensus and established research, particularly concerning the universality of life in the galaxy and the reliability of hypnotic recall.
• Outdated References: Scornaux notes that Chauvin's references are often outdated, failing to acknowledge recent developments in ufology, such as the rise of psycho-sociological hypotheses and the critical re-evaluation of many classic cases.
• Specific Examples: The review details specific page references within Chauvin's book to highlight errors concerning pilot testimonies, atmospheric transparency, orthoteny, the Betty and Barney Hill case (referred to as 'Mountain'), the Ubatuba case, and the alleged effects of UFOs on cattle mutilations.
• Criticism of Authority: Scornaux questions Chauvin's use of purported 'official' sources and unnamed 'statisticians' to support his claims.
• Trans-en-Provence Case: The article specifically refutes Chauvin's claims about the Trans-en-Provence incident, particularly the assertion of a million-rad gamma irradiation, citing GEPAN's technical note which contradicts this.
• Poher's Statistics: The review strongly criticizes the statistical work of Poher, which Chauvin uses as a final argument, calling it fundamentally flawed and based on unreliable data.

Scornaux concludes that Chauvin's book is a disservice to the public and to the field of ufology, potentially discrediting serious research by presenting such a flawed work under the guise of scientific inquiry. He emphasizes the importance of ufologists self-critiquing and correcting errors within their own field to maintain credibility against skeptical adversaries.

Other Articles and Themes

While the primary focus is the book review, the magazine's table of contents suggests other articles exploring UFO-related films ('Massacre à la tronçonneuse...', 'VIVA VIVA LA VIE'), specific cases ('TANT VA LA CRUCHE A L'EAU...', 'LA VISION DE MARTIN'), and communications ('COMMUNIQUE', 'LA NOUVELLE LIGNE OP'). The inclusion of 'SPECIAL DROIT DE REPONSE' indicates a forum for addressing reader feedback or rectifying previous statements.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The editorial stance of 'ovni présence' appears to be one of rigorous, critical, and rational investigation into the UFO phenomenon. The magazine champions the objective study of UFOs and actively seeks to debunk misinformation and flawed research, as demonstrated by the detailed critique of Chauvin's book. There is a clear emphasis on scientific methodology, accurate referencing, and a cautious approach to interpreting evidence. The magazine seems to position itself as a voice of intellectual honesty within the ufological community, willing to confront errors even from established figures. The cover's use of E.T. suggests an engagement with popular culture's portrayal of extraterrestrial contact, possibly as a point of departure for more serious discussion or as a commentary on public perception.

The magazine also highlights the importance of distinguishing between genuine unexplained phenomena and misinterpretations, hoaxes, or scientifically unsound theories. The editorial team, including Perry Petrakis and Yves Bosson, appears committed to maintaining a high standard of research and analysis.

This issue of Ovni-présence, dated April 23, 1984, is primarily focused on critical analysis within the ufology community and a review of a film that touches upon UFO themes. The magazine features a mix of film criticism, research proposals, and a significant section dedicated to reader correspondence and debates.

Cinecritiques: Viva la vie

The issue opens with a review of Claude Lelouch's 1984 film "Viva la vie." The reviewer, Yves Bosson, praises the film's production quality, including its screenplay, scene sequencing, dialogues, cinematography, and lighting. However, the core of the review focuses on Lelouch's use of the UFO/ET myth. Bosson notes that Lelouch approaches the subject with a "second degree" perspective, suggesting that the film portrays the US government appropriating UFO/contact themes for political purposes and manipulating public opinion through the media. The reviewer believes the film should encourage ufologists to be less credulous of paranormal phenomena. While acknowledging that Lelouch's intent might not be to directly promote ufology, Bosson suggests the film serves as a form of "psycho-social hygiene" by critically engaging with the topic. He questions whether ufologists will watch the film, predicting they might prefer blockbusters over auteur cinema. The review concludes by quoting Jean-Louis Trintignant's categorization of films into those that tell stories (Spielberg), those that don't (Fellini), and those that explain how to tell stories (Godard), posing the question of where "Viva la vie" fits.

Clips...

This section highlights the "Comité Poitou-Charentes des Groupements Ufologiques" (CPCGU) and its bulletin, which is described as promising. The bulletin features well-researched investigations and counter-investigations. Contact information for the committee is provided. Additionally, this section mentions the "Fund for UFO Research" and the potential for a French equivalent. It notes that the Fund has collected $15,000 since 1979, redistributing it to studies on witness psychology, UFO crashes, computer analysis of British cases, cases with physical traces in Spain, and support for the CAUS lawsuit against the CIA.

Etudes: Projet d'un catalogue des observations d'OVNI réalisées dans un contexte non-occidentalisé

Thierry Pinvidic proposes a project to catalog UFO observations made in non-Western contexts. He argues that Western UFO stereotypes might make interpretations of observations in those countries unreliable without objective data. Pinvidic acknowledges the challenge that for a "paranormal" incident to be labeled a UFO, an occidental perspective is often needed, making it an "unavoidable vector." Despite this, he believes it's important to compile cases "non-occidentalized." He has begun this by listing 29 cases from Algeria and invites ufologists to contribute further references, specifying that cases from countries with significant Western presence or influence should be excluded. Examples provided include sightings in Palowan (Philippines), Biafra, Todd River Downs (Australia), Kirimukuyu (Kenya), Niąqornarssuk (Greenland), Nawaka (Fiji), and cases related to Project Nabokok (Gabon), Laitkron (India), Ririe (Idaho), and Java. The list also includes cases from Bangkok (Thailand) and Ririe, Idaho, which Pinvidic finds potentially influenced by Western perspectives. He also lists numerous sightings by the Yakima Indians from 1957 to 1981. A further list of cases with minimal detail is provided, including sightings in Burma-Thailand, Thailand, Ouagadougou (Upper Volta), Da Nang (Vietnam), Dympep (India), Pray (Cape Verde Islands), Caberones (Botswana), Kampong Keramat (Malaysia), Bangkok (Thailand), and Dong Ha (Vietnam).

Readers' Corner

This section is dominated by a series of letters and responses, revealing significant internal conflict and criticism within the French ufology community.

• Pierre Szelechowski praises the magazine "Ovni-présence" (O.P.) issue 27, complimenting the cover art and specific articles, while humorously noting the controversial nature of T. Pinvidic's work.
• Marc Hallet also finds O.P. 27 to be a substantial issue, appreciating some articles but finding others too long. He expresses strong disagreement with T. Pinvidic's approach, stating he would have been even harsher.
• Gilbert Bourquin congratulates the magazine on its improved presentation and professionalism but advises against excessive abstraction, hermeticism, and the use of acronyms without explanation, urging them to remain accessible to new readers.
• ADRUP (Gevrey-Chambertin) sends a critical letter, referring to a "poor peasant" who is "oufologue." The letter directly challenges the magazine's publication of a lengthy text by an unnamed author (implied to be Pinvidic) that harshly criticizes researchers and ufological groups. The author of this letter argues that no one can definitively dictate what constitutes valid UFO research and criticizes the pontificating tone of the article.
• Pierre Szelechowski (second letter) reiterates his critique of the magazine's content, particularly the article that he feels unfairly attacks researchers. He questions the author's authority to define ufology and criticizes the article's dogmatic stance.
• Francis Gaudin expresses strong dissatisfaction with an article (likely Pinvidic's) that he deems disrespectful and inadmissible for a serious publication, threatening to cancel his subscription.
• Philippe Schneyders acknowledges receiving the magazine and notes the "vitupérations" (outbursts) by M. Pinvidic against his colleagues. He hopes for less polemical contributions and expresses solidarity with Jean Bernard, Jacques Maniez, and others.
• Marc Hallet (second letter) defends his position against criticism, stating that while some defend the FFU (Fédération Française d'Ufologie) as essential for coordination, he sees it as a way for incompetent individuals to mask their shortcomings. He argues that independent researchers prioritize their freedom and are not beholden to federations. He draws a parallel with the history of the Fédération Française de Naturisme, which he describes as having become repressive and sect-like.
• Rémy Chauvin responds to a critique of his novel, then addresses an interview with Marc Hallet, criticizing Hallet's perceived arrogance and his attacks on Michel and Vallée, whom Chauvin describes as intelligent and disinterested. Chauvin defends Michel's work on a "phantom satellite" and criticizes Hallet's dismissal of certain theories and his perceived lack of humility.
• Jean Bernard writes two letters. The first expresses surprise at the magazine's decision to dedicate significant space to an article that attacks researchers and ufological groups. He questions the author's authority to set research boundaries. The second letter, a response to an earlier one, reiterates his surprise and criticizes the article's dogmatic approach, particularly its dismissal of his own research on geodetic signs from the 1954 UFO wave.
• Jean Bernard also mentions that his work, along with that of Christiane Piens, was mentioned in Henry Durrant's response (O.P. 28), and that they, like Durrant, were misled.

La nouvelle ligne o.p.

This section details the creation of "SOS-OVNI" in February 1984, a telephone service for reporting UFO sightings in France. The service, run by the AESV (Association d'étude sur les soucoupes volantes), allows people to contact members 24/7. If a phenomenon is deemed potentially significant, it can trigger an alert to the Air Traffic Control (CCR) for radar analysis. The service also aims to gather information from witnesses and air traffic controllers, leveraging their professional observational skills. The article notes that the service has received nearly 2000 calls since its inception, with a significant portion being pranks or inquiries. It also mentions the collaboration between AESV and the APCA (Association Professionelle de la Circulation Aérienne), which exchanges articles on UFOs.

Un réseau organisé

This article describes the structure of air navigation and control in France, highlighting the five regional centers (CCR) and the role of control towers. It mentions the APCA as a member of IFATCA and its goal of promoting the air traffic controller profession and safety. The article notes that despite this infrastructure, few unusual phenomena are observed or filmed by pilots. It also touches upon the collaboration between APCA and AESV, with articles on UFOs being exchanged.

Spécial droit de réponse

This section contains further reader correspondence, continuing the debates from the "Readers' Corner."

• Pierre Szelechowski (third letter) questions the existence of "serious ufologists" and criticizes the perceived dominance of Parisian ufologists. He humorously describes encountering a "ufologue" with many stickers and praises T. Pinvidic's article for its lack of "conneries" (nonsense).
• Jean Bernard (third letter) criticizes the "dogmatic" and "pontificating" tone of an article in O.P. 27, which he believes unfairly attacks researchers. He questions the author's authority to define ufology and criticizes the article's narrow scope, particularly its dismissal of his own research on geodetic signs from the 1954 UFO wave.
• Jean Bernard (fourth letter) reiterates his criticism of the article, calling it a "monument of discussion" that spares no researcher. He questions the author's right to dictate research parameters and criticizes the article's dismissal of his work.
• Jean Bernard (fifth letter) continues his critique of the article, stating that he had previously believed the magazine to be eclectic but was surprised by the content of issue 27. He criticizes the article for attacking researchers and amateurs and for its dogmatic approach.
• Francis Gaudin (second letter) expresses his continued dismay at the magazine's content, particularly the article that he feels is a lack of respect and inadmissible. He reiterates his threat to cancel his subscription.
• Philippe Schneyders (second letter) acknowledges the "vitupérations" by M. Pinvidic against his colleagues and expresses hope for less polemical content. He offers solidarity with Jean Bernard, Jacques Maniez, and others.
• Marc Hallet (third letter) defends his stance, arguing that while some defend the FFU, he sees it as a means for incompetent individuals to mask their shortcomings. He contrasts this with independent researchers who value their freedom. He draws a parallel with the Fédération Française de Naturisme, which he claims became repressive and sect-like.
• Rémy Chauvin (second letter) responds to Hallet's criticism, defending Michel and Vallée and questioning Hallet's perceived arrogance and lack of humility. He criticizes Hallet's dismissal of certain theories and his own age-related assumptions.
• Jacques Scornaux confirms that his book was mentioned in Henry Durrant's response (O.P. 28) and that he, along with Christiane Piens, was also misled by Durrant.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The dominant theme in this issue is the internal debate and criticism within the ufology community, particularly concerning the methods, credibility, and organizational structures of researchers and federations. The magazine appears to provide a platform for these sometimes acrimonious exchanges, with a notable critical stance towards dogmatism and perceived arrogance within the field. The review of "Viva la vie" also reflects a critical, analytical approach to the UFO phenomenon, encouraging skepticism and a deeper examination of how the topic is presented and perceived. The project on non-Western UFO cases suggests an effort to broaden the scope of research beyond established Western paradigms. The creation of SOS-OVNI highlights a practical, albeit somewhat overwhelmed, attempt to systematize UFO reporting in France.

This issue of Ovni-présence, identified as issue number 28, focuses on critical analysis within the field of ufology. The main cover story, "L'OVNI SUIVEUR DE V2 ne répond plus" (The OVNI Follower of V2 No Longer Responds), by Marc Hallet, directly challenges a specific claim made by ufologist Henry Durrant.

L'OVNI SUIVEUR DE V2 ne répond plus

Marc Hallet meticulously dissects Henry Durrant's account of an alleged UFO sighting at Kummersdorf on February 12, 1944. Durrant's narrative, published in his book "Livre noir des soucoupes volantes," describes a spherical object accompanying a rocket launch in the presence of Joseph Goebbels, SS Gruppenführer Heinz Kammler, and SS Feldmarschall Milch. Hallet systematically debunks this account by cross-referencing historical facts.

Hallet points out several critical inconsistencies:

• Location and Secrecy: Kummersdorf, a known rocket test site, was subject to extreme secrecy. A public launch witnessed by such high-ranking officials, and potentially visible to the civilian population, contradicts this security protocol.
• Witnesses' Presence: The article highlights that Albert Speer, Minister of Armament, did not witness a V2 rocket launch until July 11 of the same year, and this was a private film screening, not a live event at Kummersdorf. This directly contradicts Durrant's claim of Speer's presence at the February 12th launch.
• Operational Status of Kummersdorf: By 1937, Kummersdorf was no longer the primary operational center for rocket development; the focus had shifted to Peenemunde. Therefore, a major experimental launch requiring extensive infrastructure would be highly unlikely at Kummersdorf in 1944.

Hallet also references David Irving's "A bout portant sur Londres" to establish that Hitler approved the filming of V1 and V2 rocket documentaries in early July 1944, further undermining Durrant's timeline.

The article questions the very nature of Durrant's contributions to ufology, suggesting that his work often consists of "thick slices of stale bread" (recycled information) with only a thin layer of original content, likening it to "rotten ham."

Durrant himself is quoted admitting to providing others with the "possibility to control" him, which Hallet interprets as an acknowledgment of the potential for his work to be scrutinized and potentially found wanting. The article poses direct questions to Durrant, demanding the exact references for his claims and challenging him to provide documentation, suggesting that if he cannot, his credibility is irrevocably damaged.

The "V7" Myth

Hallet also addresses the persistent myth of the "V7" weapon. He explains that the "V" designation (Vergeltungswaffe, or retaliation weapon) was only applied once a weapon was operational. He lists the known German rocket projects (V1, V2, and others like the V3 "Busy Lizzie" cannon) and argues that there is no historical evidence for a V4, V5, V6, or V7. He further demonstrates that any such experimental aircraft would have had a specific manufacturer designation (e.g., Me, Hs, Ju, He, Fw, Do), none of which are associated with a "V7."

The article briefly mentions various experimental German aircraft projects from WWII, such as the Daimler Benz "A," Lippisch DM 1, Junkers EF 130, Blohm und Voss P 208, Blohm und Voss Ae 607, Horten Ho-IX A, and Focke Wulf Fw 1000, to illustrate the range of advanced designs, but dismisses the possibility of a "V7" based on historical records.

La vision de Martin (The Vision of Martin)

This section, authored by Marc Hallet, revisits the historical case of Thomas Martin, a farmer from Gallardon, France, in the early 19th century. Martin reported multiple apparitions of a mysterious figure who delivered prophecies and warnings, including a plot against the King and the need for a general police force for the state.

Key events in Martin's case include:

• January 15, 1816: Martin receives his first message while spreading manure.
• Subsequent Apparitions: The figure reappears multiple times, even accompanying Martin to mass and his home, remaining invisible to others.
• Official Involvement: Martin's claims eventually reach the King, Louis XVIII, via the Prefect of Eure-et-Loir. Martin is interrogated, and even interned at Charenton, but the apparitions continue, visible only to him.
• Royal Audience: Martin is brought before King Louis XVIII, but the details of their conversation remain unknown.
• Post-Audience: After his audience, the apparitions cease, and Martin returns home. His claims generate both devotion and skepticism, leading to the emergence of other "visionaries."

Hallet draws parallels between Martin's case and modern UFO contactee experiences, noting the pattern of a humble individual receiving extraordinary messages, gaining followers, and facing scrutiny. He compares Martin's followers and critics to those surrounding figures like George Adamski, and even suggests Martin himself was a precursor to Adamski.

Hallet also discusses the potential for psychological factors, such as delusion and megalomania, to explain Martin's experiences. He references the opinion of alienists of the time, who examined Martin, and notes that the apparition allegedly demonstrated its materiality by showing a radiant light from its chest.

G. Lenotre's Thesis

The article mentions G. Lenotre's hypothesis that Martin's visions might have been a political imposture orchestrated by Decazes, the Minister of Justice, to manipulate the King. However, Lenotre himself acknowledged that this theory faced significant objections.

Hallet concludes this section by emphasizing that while the truth of Martin's experiences may remain elusive, the evolution of events and the psychological dynamics of Martin and his followers offer valuable insights, mirroring contemporary phenomena in ufology.

Clips...

This section presents brief, unrelated items:

• Hypnotism: A quote from "Meuse La Lanterne" discussing how hypnotism can create a mixture of real memories, fantasies, and pure fabrication, making it difficult to discern truth. A sheriff concludes that hypnotism is the best way to find evidence when none exists.
• Ideal Homeless Person: An experiment by "Photo-Revue" where advertising agencies were challenged to find the "ideal homeless person." An E.T. (Extra-Terrestrial) character, described as having three legs and four arms, won the challenge, highlighting a stereotypical and easily marketable image.

GERP and SHAN

Information is provided for GERP (Groupe d'Études et de Recherches en Parapsychologie) and SHAN (La prima rivista internazionale di esoterismo scienza e insolito), indicating their addresses and contact details.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue of Ovni-présence adopts a critical and analytical stance towards ufological claims. The editorial team actively seeks to debunk sensationalist or historically unsubstantiated accounts, particularly those presented by figures like Henry Durrant. The magazine prioritizes factual accuracy, historical verification, and a rational examination of evidence. There is a clear skepticism towards claims that lack rigorous documentation and historical corroboration. The comparison of historical cases like Thomas Martin's to modern UFO phenomena suggests an interest in the psychological and sociological underpinnings of belief in the extraordinary, rather than a simple acceptance of extraterrestrial explanations. The publication appears to champion a more rigorous, evidence-based approach to the study of unexplained phenomena.

This issue of the *Revue des Soucoupes Volantes* (Issue 6, dated January 1984) delves into the persistent myth of Nazi flying saucers, critically examining claims and historical context. The cover headline, "la soucoupe volante nazie" (the Nazi flying saucer), sets the tone for a discussion that aims to debunk sensationalist narratives. The issue also includes updates on ufological organizations and personal reflections on the field.

Debunking Nazi UFO Myths

The lead article addresses the alleged "revolutionary" and "secret" German aircraft projects from the end of World War II, specifically the V7 and V10 flying saucers. The author, Jean Giraud, writing from Montluçon in January 1984, asserts that despite extensive knowledge of German wartime projects, no evidence supports the existence of a "discoidal aircraft" called V7. He dismisses similar attempts by American companies like Convair (XFY1) and Lockheed (XVF 1) as having been based on these unproven German concepts.

Giraud also recalls the "grandiose" but ultimately failed German project for the A-9/A-10 rocket, a "Super V2" intended to bomb New York, which never came to fruition. He criticizes certain "researchers" and "magazines" for perpetuating these stories, noting that the defunct *Revue des Soucoupes Volantes* in its sixth issue published a "delirious" article claiming a Nazi flying saucer achieved 2000 km/h in 1945.

A particularly egregious example cited is the misidentification of a photograph. The article claims that a photo presented as a Nazi V7 is actually a prototype built by Frenchman Couzinet in 1952, the same constructor of the "Arc en Ciel de Mermoz." Giraud expresses disbelief and questions the credibility of such "insanities," suggesting they hinder genuine interest in the subject.

Ufological Organization News

The issue provides updates on ufological organizations. It announces the closure of *UFO-QUEBEC*, noting that its Business Reply Post (B.P.) is being abandoned, but some members will continue their ufological activities. Information is provided for those seeking old issues: contact Marc Leduc at 1200 Mesnard, St-Bruno, Québec, Canada, J3V 4L1.

In a more positive note, the *Association d'Études et de Synthèse sur les Phénomènes Aérospatiaux et Véhiculaires* (AESV) celebrated its 10th anniversary in April. The author reflects on the ethical dilemma of whether to discuss AESV's work openly or maintain modesty. He humorously describes his attempt to address the question subtly, likening it to "touching the question while appearing not to." He concludes that due to the complexity of the issue, he will revisit it in ten years.

Personal Reflections on Ufology

Jean Giraud shares a personal perspective on the state of ufology. He observes that the disdain with which official science treats ufology is a reciprocal response to the disdain many ufologists have shown towards their own discipline and those who might be interested in it. He states, "I am not complaining... I am just noting it!" This sentiment underscores a frustration with the polarization and lack of constructive dialogue within the field.

Contact Information and Legal Notice

Page 3 provides contact details for the "Observatoire des Parasciences" in Marseille, France, including a PO Box, email address (*[email protected]*), and several web links related to articles, "Ovni-Présence," and "Anomalies" hosted on *lescahiers.net*.

A significant legal notice is included in both French and English. It strictly prohibits the retrieval and online publication of the digital version of this magazine on any website, blog, or social network. The only authorized online publication is on the AFU (Archives for the Unexplained) website. Any unauthorized publication is considered copyright infringement and will be subject to prosecution.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme in this issue is the critical examination and debunking of sensationalist claims, particularly concerning "Nazi UFOs." The editorial stance appears to be one of skepticism towards unsubstantiated historical narratives and a call for more rigorous and honest engagement with the subject of ufology. The magazine also serves as a platform for news within the ufological community, highlighting the activities and challenges faced by organizations and researchers in the field. The personal reflections suggest a desire for a more mature and ethically grounded approach to ufological investigation and communication.