Phenomene OVNI - No 10 - 1er trim 1980

Magazine Overview

This issue of the CSERU (Comité Savoyard d'études et de Recherches Ufologiques) publication, titled 'LES OVNI DU PASSE' (The UFOs of the Past), is issue number 10, dated the first trimester of 1980. The cover prominently features the title 'le phénomène O.V.N.I' and the CSERU logo. The issue's price is listed as 6.50 fos.

Table of Contents

The table of contents outlines several articles and sections:

• Sommaire, page 1: The table of contents itself.
• Les OVNI du passé : le double point de vue de l'Historien-Ufologue, première partie, par Gilbert CORNU, pp 2 à 8: This is the main article, presenting the first part of a historical-ufological perspective.
• Humour, par Jean Pierre PETIT (Aix les Bains), page 9: A humorous contribution.
• Les Contacts, ou l'intoxication extraterrestre, par Jean Pierre TROADEC, pp 10 à 17: An article on extraterrestrial contact and its potential for 'intoxication'.
• Courrier : Jean SIDER, Jacques BOSSO, Jean François GILLE ( "l'isocélie de Fumoux: vers une logique des atterrissages d'OVNI?"), pp 18-22: A section for reader correspondence and discussion, including a specific query about landing patterns.
• Spécial U.R.S.S. (première partie), pp 23 à 31: The first part of a special report on UFOs in the USSR.
• Les OVNI à la Chambre des Lords, par Thierry PINVIDIC, pp 32 à 34: An examination of UFO discussions in the British House of Lords.
• A la vitrine du libraire "Planètes pensantes", de JJ Walter, analyse de Michel PICARD, page 34: A review of a book or display related to ufology.
• Structures et Bloc Notes, pp 35 et 36: A section for miscellaneous notes and structural information.

The issue also includes a quote attributed to Ira EINHORN, a poet from Philadelphia: "Les OVNI, 'c'est comme l'aiguille et la meule de foin. Nous avons l'aiguille, et nous cherchons la meule de foin".

Article: Les OVNI du passé : le double point de vue de l'Historien-Ufologue, première partie

This extensive article, authored by Gilbert CORNU and introduced by Nicolas Greslou, explores the challenging intersection of history and ufology. Greslou begins by referencing his previous article in issue #8, where he advocated for a historical approach to the UFO phenomenon. He notes the scarcity of individuals who can be considered 'historian-ufologists,' identifying only three such individuals.

Cornu, taking over the discussion, acknowledges Greslou's 'plea' and aims to expand upon it. He points out that while identifying as an 'ufologist' can be provocative, claiming the title of 'historian' is even more so, as it requires adherence to specific academic standards. Cornu, an history teacher himself, takes seriously both history and ufology, positioning himself as a 'two-faced character' akin to the Roman god Janus.

Cornu frames the core issue as a potential conflict between the historian's need for verifiable evidence and methodology, and the ufologist's quest for understanding a phenomenon that often defies conventional explanation. He questions whether the rarity of historian-ufologists stems from inherent difficulties or a lack of competence, methodology, or clear objectives.

He observes a significant divide: professional historians, bound by academic norms, largely refuse to acknowledge or investigate the UFO phenomenon, often displaying solidarity with scientific colleagues. This academic aversion is mirrored by some ufologists and writers who express hostility towards official science and history, accusing them of concealing truths. This creates an uncomfortable situation for those who engage with both fields, forcing them to choose a side.

Despite this divide, Cornu argues that the UFO phenomenon is intrinsically linked to the fabric of history, extending beyond the modern era of 1947 to the very beginnings of humanity. He cites examples like Henry Durrant's 'Livre noir des soucoupes volantes,' Michel Bougard's 'La Chronique des OVNI,' and other researchers who have compiled historical UFO cases and examined biblical texts for potential references. He also mentions a 1975 US doctoral thesis on the UFO controversy.

Cornu then delves into the reactions of ufology readers, citing surveys from the Belgian magazine 'Inforespace' (1974 and 1977) which indicated that 'history' and 'prehistory' sections related to UFOs were the least popular and even proposed for deletion. A similar trend was observed in a 1978 French survey. This lack of reader interest is described as 'disarming,' especially given the importance of understanding this historical reality.

He contrasts this with the interest shown by young people, noting that while school textbooks ignore UFOs, popular youth magazines and even 'Le Monde' newspaper have reported on them positively. This creates a disconnect between the academic/adult view and the younger generation's perception.

Cornu expresses doubt about the utility of publishing practical research advice if readers remain fixated on the 'irrational' aspect of UFOs, failing to connect the phenomenon to its historical context. He believes that disconnecting ufology from history is a path to its demise.

He then outlines three main areas of historical study concerning UFOs:

1. Study of the phenomenon's manifestations throughout the centuries and their apparent evolution: This involves verifying testimonies, assessing the veracity of facts, and understanding the meaning and consequences for humanity, regardless of the phenomenon's ultimate reality (which is the ufologist's domain).
2. Study of human efforts over 30 years by ufological groups to gain acceptance for the UFO phenomenon: This includes examining the resistance encountered from official institutions (governmental, scientific, religious) and the difficulty in obtaining key testimonies, as noted by Aimé Michel.
3. Study of the evolution of contemporary ideas in response to the 'repeated aggression' of an apparently irrational phenomenon: This explores how the influx of the irrational risks destabilizing current civilization, a concern shared by ufologists like Aimé Michel and Jacques Vallée.

Cornu clarifies that the historian's domain is the entire past, including human activities, economics, science, culture, and even natural phenomena like the evolution of species or planets. He emphasizes that history is about understanding the meaning of events, not just narrating them.

He distinguishes between a simple narrator of events (like Alain Decaux) and a true historian (like Michelet or Toynbee), noting that the latter focus on the meaning and intelligibility of transformations.

Cornu also addresses the distinction between an historian and an ufologist. He states that a gendarme or a researcher for an ufological group is not necessarily an ufologist. An ufologist, in his view, is someone who studies the phenomenon to find its hidden meaning and understand its mechanisms, even if they are currently limited to developing uncertain hypotheses.

Article: Les Contacts, ou l'intoxication extraterrestre

This section, by Jean Pierre TROADEC, appears to explore the concept of extraterrestrial contact and its potential negative psychological or societal effects, referred to as 'intoxication.' The accompanying illustration depicts two figures, one pointing to a diagram labeled 'AREV.... AREU!' and the other recoiling with the exclamation 'plus jamais ça!' (never again!). The text suggests that extraterrestrials are dangerous through their 'irrationality,' using 'paralyzing rays' or 'disintegrating beams' that target the mental state. The proposed counter-offensive is 'rationalism,' invoking Descartes' famous quote, "je pense, donc je suis" (I think, therefore I am). The second illustration shows figures reacting with surprise and disbelief to statements like "je ne crois que ce que je vois" (I only believe what I see).

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue strongly advocates for a rigorous, historical approach to ufology, emphasizing the need for clear methodologies and a focus on understanding the phenomenon's meaning within a broader historical context. There is a clear critique of both mainstream historical academia for its dismissal of ufology and of certain ufological circles that may prioritize sensationalism over serious research. The publication positions itself as a platform for serious, critical inquiry into UFO phenomena, aiming to elevate ufology's standing by grounding it in historical and scientific principles. The theme of potential extraterrestrial 'aggression' and the human response through rationalism is also a significant undercurrent in this issue.

This issue of LES CONTACTS, published in 1978, delves into the complex and often controversial field of ufology, with a particular focus on "contacts" with non-human entities. The cover headline, "LES CONTACTS ou L'INTOXICATION EXTRATERRESTRE," immediately signals the article's intent to explore the nature and implications of these encounters. The magazine appears to be a French publication, as indicated by the language and publisher information.

Categorization of UFO Phenomena

The central theme of the issue is the meticulous categorization of UFO-related phenomena to better understand and study them. The author proposes a classification system to differentiate between various types of encounters, aiming to avoid the confusion that arises from lumping dissimilar events together. This system is crucial for a more scientific approach to ufology.

Group A: Observations

This group encompasses observations of phenomena that occur at different altitudes, ranging from high-altitude sightings to those closer to the ground (15 to 50 meters). It also includes "quasi-landings" (1 to 15 meters above ground) and actual landings. These events can be associated with physical effects on witnesses (burns, migraines, blindness, spontaneous scarring) and environmental impacts (engine failures, electrical disruptions, magnetic anomalies). The article notes that while these effects are not always present, they are significant when they occur.

Group B: Humanoid Presence

This category is defined by cases where entities, often described as humanoid, are mentioned. These are typically associated with landings, though sometimes no object is perceived. Despite being reported globally, these phenomena constitute a small percentage of all UFO testimonies.

Group C: Contacts

Group C includes cases where witnesses not only see an entity but also converse with it. These "contacts" are even rarer than cases involving humanoid presence. The article promises a detailed examination of contact characteristics later.

Group D: Related Phenomena

This group covers a variety of phenomena that are difficult to strictly label as ufological but are often connected. Examples include hauntings, spontaneous combustions, sonic or kinetic manifestations inside or outside homes, disappearances of people or animals, and cattle mutilations. The author emphasizes that while ufologists generally recognize these categories, some tend to exclude contacts and related phenomena, deeming them too rare or not scientifically verifiable.

The Author's Perspective on Ufology

The author argues that a fundamental error is made by excluding certain phenomena. True ufology, in their view, requires an open mind and a willingness to consider all data. While acknowledging the importance of high-altitude flights and landings without entities for comprehensive study, the author does not advocate for ignoring other cases. The article distinguishes between the core of ufology (flights and landings without entities) and the more speculative areas of parapsychology and psychotronics.

Distinguishing Humanoids and Contacts

Aimé Michel's view that cases involving humanoids are mere "cinema" is shared by the author, who believes these are relative realities influenced by anthropomorphic concepts. The author advocates focusing on cases without humanoids, as they are considered more objective. However, the article stresses that excluding other phenomena would be anti-scientific. The author acknowledges the difficulty of studying cases with entities, especially contacts, which are often viewed with skepticism due to sensationalized media coverage of pseudo-contactees.

Defining "Contacts"

The article proposes a broad definition of "contact" to facilitate understanding and research. The author redefines "extraterrestrial" visitors to encompass various scenarios:

1. Landing with humanoid presence and information exchange: This includes humanitarian, philosophical, or scientific messages transmitted through speech, telepathy, gestures, drawings, or writing. It can involve penetration into the craft and even travel.
2. Landing without humanoid presence, but with auditory information: The witness remains near the craft and hears a voice, or finds a written message.
3. Landing without humanoid presence, with mental auditory information: Similar to point 2, but the voice is perceived mentally.
4. Landing without humanoid presence, with internal observation: The witness enters the craft and observes the interior, possibly hearing a voice.
5. Mental contact without physical encounter: Purely mental communication with extraterrestrials.
6. Mental contact during the passage of a craft: Mental contact occurs when a UFO is observed, but no landing takes place.
7. Chance encounter with a humanoid: Meeting an entity that appears human in a normal setting (e.g., on the street).
8. Astral projection/out-of-body experience: Contact established during an astral projection, potentially involving visions of objects, beings, or planets.
9. Hypnotic contact: Contact made under hypnosis, also potentially involving visions.
10. Marian apparitions with messages.
11. Religious apparitions (angels, deities) with messages.
12. Spiritist contact with extraterrestrials.
13. Radio contact with extraterrestrials.
14. Other cases.

The author justifies this broad definition by stating that all these cases exist and offer valuable insights for study. The inclusion of Marian and religious apparitions is defended by drawing parallels with the first category of contact, suggesting that the context may differ, but the underlying schema of receiving a message is similar. The interpretation of these messages is influenced by the witness's beliefs and cultural background.

Abductions and Teletransports

Initially, the author did not intend to include abductions and teletransports in the study of contacts. However, convinced by others, they are now considered derivatives of contacts. The key difference lies in the perceived voluntariness: in contacts, the witness is generally free to choose, while in abductions and teletransports, the experience is imposed.

Abductions

These typically involve witnesses being forcibly taken into a craft for examination, to see certain devices, or for a journey aboard the craft.

Teletransports

These cases usually lack the observation of an unusual object. The witness, often in a car, enters a whitish cloud, loses consciousness, and reappears hundreds or thousands of kilometers away, often with no significant fuel consumption. Hypnosis sessions sometimes reveal details similar to abductions.

Both abductions and teletransports are considered valuable for understanding extraterrestrials and their technology. These phenomena often involve "revelations" from extraterrestrials about their planet, life, propulsion methods, reasons for visiting Earth, and perceived dangers, though the author dismisses many of these as "bogus."

Preliminary Results and Methodology

As of the study's commencement in 1975, the author had compiled approximately 200 contact cases, 60 abductions, and 20 teletransports globally, with about 40 cases from France. The author acknowledges that verifying all cases is impossible and that evidence is often lacking. Instead, the focus is on identifying strong presumptions for or against the reality of an experience. The study highlights the significance of commonalities found in descriptions or messages from unrelated witnesses, especially when these occur within short timeframes and across vast distances, suggesting more than mere coincidence.

Celebrity Contactees vs. Anonymous Witnesses

The article distinguishes between "celebrity" contactees, who often write books and gain public attention, and anonymous witnesses. The author expresses caution regarding celebrity contactees, suggesting that financial incentives might lead to fabrication. Anonymous witnesses, who generally avoid publicity and experience significant disruption in their lives, are considered more likely to be sincere. The author notes that, surprisingly, only contactees tend to write about their experiences, while abductees and teletransportees do not seem to document them in writing.

The "Stanford Affair" Controversy

A significant portion of the issue is dedicated to refuting accusations made by Jacques Scornaux against researcher Leonard Stringfield regarding the "Stanford affair" of January 6, 1976. Scornaux alleged that Stringfield committed "gaffes" by showing drawings of humanoids to a witness before she mentioned them and by conducting interrogations in the presence of other witnesses.

Refuting the "First Gaffe"

The author explains that Stringfield did not intentionally show the drawings to Mrs. Mona Stafford. Instead, a portfolio of drawings was placed on a table near her during a post-hypnotic session. Mrs. Stafford, in a highly emotional state, spontaneously identified one of the sketches as resembling something she saw. The author argues that this was not a "gaffe" but a deliberate attempt to elicit information and bring the case to light, especially since other witnesses had refused hypnosis and the case was at risk of being dismissed.

Refuting the "Second Gaffe"

Scornaux also claimed that interrogating witnesses together, even under hypnosis, was a mistake. The author counters that this occurred four months after the initial session and was directed by Dr. R. Leo Sprinkle, not Stringfield. Furthermore, according to a bulletin from the APRO association, witnesses were initially interrogated separately, and only later were allowed to attend supplementary sessions together to observe each other's behavior. The author concludes that Scornaux's accusations are unfounded and deliberately distorted.

The Role of "National Enquirer"

It is revealed that an investigator, intrigued by Mrs. Stafford's reaction, independently contacted the "National Enquirer," which sent reporter Bob Pratt. This involvement, driven by the potential for a sensational story and financial gain, is seen as potentially diminishing the value of the "carton à dessins" incident, but not as a "gaffe" when viewed in its original context.

Conclusion and Table of Phenomena

The article concludes by emphasizing that the reality of these phenomena is undeniable, even if their origin remains speculative. The author suggests that "visitors" might be orchestrating a large-scale mystification campaign, though the ultimate goal is unclear. The issue includes a recapitulative table summarizing the different groups (A, B, C, D) and their associated phenomena, such as flights, landings, contacts, abductions, teletransports, hauntings, and mutilations.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the scientific investigation of UFO phenomena, the critical analysis of witness testimonies, and the classification of various types of encounters. The editorial stance is one of open-mindedness, advocating for a thorough and unbiased approach to ufology, while also expressing skepticism towards sensationalism and potential manipulation. The publication seems to champion a more "militant" form of ufology, moving beyond passive observation to active investigation and debate, as indicated by the "Courrier" section which features a polemic between readers.

This issue of "D'URSS" (Volume 23, Issue 1, dated November 23, 1979) focuses on UFO phenomena and related scientific investigations, with a particular emphasis on reports from the Soviet Union. The magazine presents articles that debunk alleged hoaxes, analyze sighting patterns, and offer scientific explanations for unusual aerial events.

Article 1: Debunking the "Corsican Photos"

This section addresses the controversial "Corsican photos" taken on February 12, 1971, near Olmo, Corsica, by the Favre brothers. Despite their notoriety and frequent appearance in ufological literature, the article reveals that one of the brothers, Daniel Favre, confessed in a letter to the CSERU that the incident was a hoax staged for financial gain. He described the alleged UFO as a Peugeot car hubcap thrown high into the air. The author, Jacques Bosso, concludes that ufology is too fragile a science to endorse such practices and that the affair should be remembered as a remarkable piece of trickery and a commercial operation.

Article 2: The "Isocélie de Fumoux" and UFO Landing Sites

Authored by Jean Francois Gille, a Doctor of Sciences and researcher at CNRS, this article examines the "Isocélie de Fumoux" hypothesis. This theory, proposed by Air Force officer Jean Charles Fumoux, suggests that UFO landing sites, when plotted on a map of France, form isosceles triangles, implying a non-random distribution. Aimé Michel had previously identified such alignments based on press clippings. However, Jacques Vallée later argued that most of these alignments could be attributed to chance. Gille's research, conducted with the help of computer analysis, aimed to demonstrate that the 'isosceles' pattern was not random. The study analyzed UFO landing sites in metropolitan France between September 26 and October 18, 1954. The results indicated that the number of isosceles triangles formed by these points had less than a one in a thousand chance of being due to random chance. The research utilized a database compiled by Michel Figuet, covering nearly 600 Close Encounter cases, and was processed using a Tektronix 4.051 computer. The methodology is described as strictly scientific and reproducible. The article includes tables showing results from real UFO reports and simulations, comparing the findings of JFG (Gille), JCF (Fumoux), and JJV (Vallée).

Article 3: The Petrozavodsk Phenomenon

This section, presented as a "special URSS" feature, includes several documents concerning unusual aerial phenomena observed in the Soviet Union. The primary focus is on the Petrozavodsk phenomenon, first reported in "Izvestia" on September 23, 1977. Residents of Petrozavodsk witnessed a large, bright 'star' in the sky on September 20, 1977, which emitted luminous beams and appeared as a 'jellyfish' shape. The phenomenon lasted 10 to 12 minutes, accompanied by a strong ozone smell. While meteorological services reported no unusual atmospheric conditions, the event sparked considerable interest.

Further analysis by Dr. Dmitriev, a doctor of chemistry, presented in "Aviation et Astronautique" (1978, No. 8 and 1979, No. 3), suggests that the Petrozavodsk phenomenon, and similar events, are natural atmospheric occurrences related to chemiluminescence. Dmitriev explains that specific conditions, including the rupture of ozone in the stratosphere and the reinforcement of photochemical aerosols, lead to the formation of luminous displays. These displays are caused by chemical reactions involving ozone, nitrogen oxides, and other particles. The intensity of these reactions can be significantly amplified, making the phenomenon visible and sometimes accompanied by strong light emissions and even explosions. The article details the visual stages of the Petrozavodsk event through descriptive text and diagrams (pages 26-27), illustrating the transformation of the object from a 'star' to a 'jellyfish' and its subsequent movements and light emissions.

Another report, from "Technique et Science" (1978, No. 9), also discusses the Petrozavodsk phenomenon, reiterating the scientific explanation involving chemiluminescence and atmospheric reactions. It highlights the role of chemical reactions of ozone, nitrogen oxides, and other particles in creating these luminous effects.

Article 4: Other Soviet Aerial Phenomena

This section also includes reports of other unusual aerial sightings in the Soviet Union:

• Riazan Incident (October 11, 1977): Three aircraft pilots observed a luminescent elliptical object moving at 9000 feet, described as having a white, blindingly bright front and covered in white threads. The object approached in a combat formation before veering off. During the sighting, radio communications between the aircraft and ground control were disrupted.
• Koustanoi Incident (date not specified): The pilot of a Tupolev 134A aircraft observed a brilliant, mobile object resembling a disc moving at high altitude, emitting strong phosphorescence. The crew initially mistook it for the moon.
• Tupolev 134B Incident (date not specified): The commander of a Tupolev 134B aircraft reported a collision with a flying atmospheric formation, resulting in an explosion and fire, causing considerable damage.

Dmitriev's analysis suggests that many of these phenomena, including aerial explosions, are natural occurrences. He criticizes some scientists for presenting these events as extraterrestrial spacecraft without sufficient evidence, leading to public misinformation.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently adopts a critical and scientific approach to UFO phenomena. It emphasizes the importance of rigorous investigation, debunking hoaxes, and seeking natural explanations for sightings. The editorial stance is skeptical of sensationalism and promotes a grounded, evidence-based understanding of aerial anomalies. The inclusion of scientific explanations for phenomena like chemiluminescence in Petrozavodsk underscores this commitment to rational inquiry. The publication also highlights the rarity and significance of previously unpublished information from the Soviet Union, positioning itself as a source for unique ufological data.

This issue of "LES OVNI ET LES LORDS" (UFOs and Lords), published by CSERU in France in the first quarter of 1980, focuses on international developments in UFO research and related phenomena. The magazine features articles on a significant debate in the British House of Lords, recent atmospheric explosions in the USA, and a review of a book supporting the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

Atmospheric Explosions in the USA

The issue reports on unexplained explosions that caused vibrations in buildings in the New Jersey area. The White House's Representative for Science and Technology, A. Morrisei, stated that NASA, the State Department, and the Defense Department had no information about programs that could cause such explosions. The Defense Department noted the absence of aircraft or naval artillery exercises during the incidents. A scientific committee was formed to investigate, with the maritime research laboratory tasked with detailed studies. Later, the US Department of Geology reported that these explosions were similar to those observed over the past century. American "vela" series satellites had registered powerful discharges, but these were less immediately observable than the atmospheric events. The US government admitted it had no information on the nature of these atmospheric explosions, and no military or scientific organization claimed responsibility. The article suggests these phenomena are similar to atmospheric glows, caused by the accumulation of reactive chemical substances in the stratosphere, leading to spontaneous formation of chemiluminescent zones. Increased pollution is predicted to raise the possibility of such apparitions. International agreements for strategic information exchange on natural atmospheric phenomena are deemed rational, emphasizing the need for scientific study and environmental conservation.

The House of Lords Debate and the WASA Project

A significant portion of the magazine is dedicated to a debate on UFOs held in the prestigious House of Lords in London on January 29, 1979. A special group within the House had been studying UFOs since January 1979, chaired by the Duke of Clancarty. The debate featured Major Colman Von Keviczki, a Hungarian Military Academy graduate and former head of audio-visual services for the Hungarian Royal Staff. Von Keviczki, who has advocated for a global UFO study for 30 years, presented his case. He had previously urged U Thant in 1966 to establish an international UFO study organization under UN auspices. His latest initiative is the WASA project, approved by the UN's space affairs group, aiming to create an independent international authority for spatial affairs, involving governments, specialists, and ufologists. The project's title, WASA, stands for "WORLD AUTHORITY FOR SPATIAL AFFAIRS." This initiative is also supported by a 140-page document distributed by the New York-based ufological association ICUFON, of which Von Keviczki is president. The document includes facsimiles of correspondence and official reports from various US government agencies (CIA, FBI, NABA, USAF) and international military staffs, which are described as "enlightening." Von Keviczki believes that major powers are withholding information about UFOs for hegemonic reasons, citing "potential technological secrets." The article notes that his efforts at the UN faced pressure from the US government, and he was sidelined in 1966 by American delegate Arthur Goldberg, acting on President Johnson's orders. Documents suggest the Condon Committee acted under CIA orders. A 1977 letter from the Air Force to NASA expressed a strong desire to prevent a public reopening of the UFO dossier, despite a 1969 USAF circular stating that no UFO had endangered national security. A secret 1969 memo indicated that UFO reports concerning national security were to be handled separately from the Blue Book investigation. Von Keviczki argues that the WASA project seeks to lift military secrecy and emphasizes that UFO investigation should be the domain of scientists, not the public. He highlights the problem of media control, government-induced misinformation, and sensationalist ufological journalism that undermines serious research.

International Support and Challenges for WASA

Von Keviczki presented his findings in London on January 29, 1979, as part of a European tour, with a 50-minute presentation supported by 110 slides. He views UFO waves as having a "strategic" aspect, noting the surveillance of industrial zones, communication networks, military sites, nuclear test centers, and space launch bases. He states that energy sources and transport methods are controlled, and UFOs pose a potential danger to international security, contradicting the official stance of Project Blue Book. The WASA project aims for voluntary nations to demand the lifting of military secrecy. A letter from D. Lubos Perek, head of the UN Space Affairs Group, dated June 7, 1979, indicated that the UN committee would require more decisive evidence of UFO existence to be favorable to WASA's creation. The WASA project is supported by OSAG but must proceed independently of the UN. The House of Lords group's involvement, potentially with Prince Philip's interest in UFOs, could foster the creation of an International Authority. However, recent international tensions, the return to a cold war, and energy supply issues might delay the debate. The Duke of Clancarty intends to discuss the proposal with the British government.

Book Review: "PLANETES PENSANTES"

This section reviews J.J. Walter's book "PLANETES PENSANTES" (published in 1980 by Denoël), which is described as a significant work on the extraterrestrial hypothesis (HET). The review argues that the book provides substantial scientific information that makes speculation about UFO origins trivial and demonstrates the absurdity of denying UFO existence. It dismisses Monnerie's "waking dream" as an optical illusion or fairy tale. The "telephone investigation" is characterized as a fad for young people, endorsed by M. Schatzman, president of the rationalist union and astrophysicist. Schatzman is criticized for his perceived inability to discover significant astronomical phenomena and for his public pronouncements on rationalism. The review notes Schatzman's limited scientific references, dating back to 1920, and suggests he is too preoccupied with promoting rationalist authors to engage in astrophysics. The book is said to render the "endless chatter" of "psycho-ufologists" obsolete, comparing them to psychoanalysts with their cult-like behavior and persecution complex. The review posits that true ufology lies at the forefront of astrophysics, exobiology, and mathematical chemistry, while acknowledging the persistence of reductionist viewpoints. It concludes that to understand ufology, one must engage with Walter's work, refuting or ignoring it.

CSERU Activities and Structure

The magazine details the structure and activities of the CSERU (Comité Européen de Coordination de la Recherche Ufologique). The organization's bureau includes Nicolas GRESLOU (president), Jacques ROULET (vice-president), Jacques BOSSO (vice-president), Marc DERIVE (secretary), Antoine BARTOLO (technical material), Serge CHAZOTTES (archivist/treasurer), and Marcel PETIT (surveillance coordinator). Other administrative council members and regional delegates are also listed. The CSERU's headquarters are in Chambery, France, with public access on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month. The organization is a member of the European Committee for the Coordination of Ufological Research (CECRU).

Subscription and Membership Information

Information is provided on subscriptions to the review "Phénomène OVNI," with rates for France and abroad. Membership cards offer benefits such as library access, attendance at monthly conferences, consultation of anonymous investigations, participation in the general assembly, and potential involvement in investigations after training. Reductions on public conferences are also offered. Payment can be made by check or postal order. The publication emphasizes that all collaborators are volunteers and that profits are reinvested in ufological research.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue strongly advocates for transparency in UFO research and criticizes government secrecy and misinformation. It highlights the growing international interest in UFOs, particularly within scientific and governmental circles, as evidenced by the House of Lords debate and the WASA project. The editorial stance appears to favor the scientific investigation of UFOs and supports the extraterrestrial hypothesis, while dismissing skeptical viewpoints as outdated or reductionist. There is a clear emphasis on the need for collaboration between scientists and ufologists to advance the field. The magazine also touches upon the potential dangers posed by UFOs and the strategic implications of their surveillance.