Phenomene OVNI - No 16 - 1er trim 1984

Magazine Overview

'Phenomene OVNI' is a French ufology magazine published by the Comité Savoyard d'études et de Recherches Ufologiques (CSERU). This issue, number 16, is dated the first quarter of 1984, with an editorial note from January 21, 1984, and a cover date of March 9, 1984. The magazine aims to provide more local information and investigations, potentially at the expense of more in-depth theoretical articles.

Editorial and Publication Status

The editorial section, written by Nicolas GRESLOU, addresses the significant delay in publication since issue number 15, which appeared nearly two years prior. GRESLOU explains that the hiatus was due to internal changes within CSERU, material problems, and staff fatigue. He announces the revival of the magazine, 'Phenomene OVNI', now with a new editorial team and a new machine, promising a regular publication of three issues per year. He apologizes for the delay and thanks readers for their patience and continued support, emphasizing the financial necessity of re-subscriptions.

Key Articles and Investigations

The Betty Cash Affair

This issue features a detailed investigation into the "affaire BETTY CASH" by Jean SIDER, covering pages 2-6. The incident, which took place on the evening of December 29, 1980, near Dayton, Texas, involved Betty CASH (52), her friend Vicky LANDRUM (56), and Vicky's 7-year-old grandson Colby LANDRUM. While driving on a dark, rural road, they encountered a bright light on the road. As they approached, they realized it was a diamond-shaped object hovering above the road, emitting intense flames. The object was described as having a silver, rounded upper part and emitting an aura of light. The witnesses initially thought it was an airplane. The heat from the object was so intense that Betty Cash stopped the car about fifty meters away.

All three occupants exited the vehicle. Betty Cash, who has deep religious convictions, remained outside longer, contemplating the spectacle. The heat became unbearable, and she had to use a garment to avoid burning herself when closing the car door. The object then ascended and moved away to the east. Shortly after, about twenty helicopters of various models appeared and began a strange ballet around the ascending object, with no discernible markings.

Betty Cash drove away, visibly shaken. The incident lasted approximately 20 minutes. Later, it was identified that one of the helicopters resembled a Boeing CH-47 Chinook. The witnesses experienced significant physical and psychological distress following the encounter. Betty Cash suffered from severe headaches, nausea, vomiting, skin discoloration (turning scarlet), swelling of the eyes leading to near blindness, and hair loss. She required hospitalization and treatment for burns. Vicky Landrum and Colby Landrum also experienced lesser effects, including stomach problems and skin issues.

Further investigation by ufologists like John SCHUESSLER and Allan HENDRY from CUFOS, MUFON, and APRO, along with checks with military sources, confirmed that no military exercises were taking place in the Houston area at the time of the incident. The case is highlighted as one of the most important of the decade, particularly due to the "secondary effects" and the involvement of numerous unidentified helicopters.

Treatise on Ratology (Conclusion)

Michel PICARD concludes his "TRAITE DE RATOLOGIE" (Treatise on Ratology) in this issue (pages 10-11). He argues for the necessity of addressing people in a language they understand, even if it involves confronting what he terms "ratology" – a systematic mindset that elevates a thesis to a general theory, often reducing or ignoring inexplicable aspects of subjects. PICARD criticizes Michel Monnerie, accusing him of being a victim of his own "committee of ufological salvation" and suggesting that Monnerie's own past involvement in such committees makes his complaints about censorship ironic. PICARD defines ratology as a state of mind dominated by a systematic spirit, where one's thesis is turned into a general theory of the world, capable of integrating everything to conform to dogma. He describes the ratologue's attitude as sometimes offensive, using verbal escalation and anathema to avoid deeper reflection or to dismiss contradictory evidence. He points to Michel Rouzé's work as an example of this behavior, accusing scientists who consider parapsychology of "abandoning themselves to reverie" or "mystical wandering."

PICARD notes that this ratological mindset is found in many scientists, not in their experimental work, but in their conclusions drawn from observations. He mentions Jacques Monod and Evry Schatzman, president of the "Union Ratologique," as examples. He asserts that while he may not reach Schatzman's level, he has also been accused of similar tendencies.

Other Articles and Features

• "Le Satellite de Vénus" by Christiane PIENS (pages 18-22) likely discusses findings related to Venus satellites.
• "Les OVNI en URSS" (suite et fin) by Jean BASTIDE (pages 23-30) continues and concludes a series on UFO sightings in the Soviet Union.
• "CSERU Informations" (page 30) provides updates from the organization.
• "Lettre de Jean François GILLE" (pages 31-32) presents a letter from a reader.
• A Review of the Press section includes an excerpt from the review "BIENTOT" (April 1981), featuring an interview with Jean Pierre PETIT by Jacques PRADEL, discussing the nature of scientific progress and the role of "explorers" in pushing boundaries.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine's primary focus is on UFO and UAP phenomena, with a strong emphasis on detailed case studies, particularly those with significant witness testimony and physical effects, as exemplified by the Betty Cash case. There is a clear interest in unexplained aerial phenomena, including the presence of unidentified helicopters often associated with UFO sightings. The editorial stance appears to be one of rigorous investigation, as evidenced by the detailed reporting and the inclusion of multiple sources and cross-references. The magazine also engages with theoretical aspects of ufology, as seen in the "Treatise on Ratology," which critiques certain approaches within the field. The publication acknowledges its past difficulties but expresses a commitment to regular publication and to serving its readership with relevant, often local, information. The inclusion of reader letters and organizational updates suggests an effort to foster a community around ufological research.

This issue of *La Recherche* (No. 91, July-August 1978) delves into a critical examination of scientific discourse, particularly focusing on the perceived ideological biases within certain scientific circles. The central theme revolves around the concept of 'ratology,' a pejorative term coined by the author to describe a dogmatic, sclerotic, and ideologically driven approach to science, contrasting it with genuine scientific inquiry.

Article 1: Schatzman and the 'Principle of Economy of Thought'

The issue begins by discussing an article by Schatzman published in "La Recherche" (41) on cosmology. Schatzman is presented as adhering to a 'classical' physics and emphasizing a 'principle of economy of thought,' a concept inspired by Mach and later adopted by Einstein. This principle suggests that scientific progress should be conservative, only introducing new physics when forced by experience, not by imagination. The author critiques this stance, particularly in relation to Einstein's theory of relativity, which was born out of a period of intense, almost irrational, creative illumination. The author argues that Schatzman's position is not only historically inaccurate regarding Einstein but also represents a conservativism that hinders scientific exploration.

Article 2: François Lurçat's Critique of Hegemony in Cosmology

François Lurçat, in a 'free tribune' piece, denounces the 'hegemony of theory' in cosmology. He argues that philosophy is omnipresent in physics and cosmology, even when scientists claim to neglect it. Lurçat uses Schatzman's article as a case study, pointing out Schatzman's reliance on philosophical concepts like the principle of economy of thought, the notion of crucial experiments (citing Michelson), and Popper's concept of 'falsification.' Lurçat contends that Schatzman's philosophy, while claiming to be scientific, often leads to overlooking the complexities of scientific practice. He specifically criticizes Schatzman's interpretation of Popper, suggesting that a single contradictory fact is not always sufficient to falsify a theory, citing Schatzman's own discussion of the anisotropy of the Hubble constant as an example where a more nuanced approach is needed.

Lurçat's Response to Schatzman and the 'Scientific Method'

Lurçat further engages with Schatzman's conclusion that a 'gravitational catastrophe' is difficult to avoid. Lurçat highlights a contradiction in Schatzman's philosophy: it aims to be integral to science but often denies its philosophical nature, presenting its tenets as self-evident. Lurçat questions Popper's idea that a single fact can falsify a theory, arguing that reality is more complex. He notes that Schatzman vaguely alludes to a 'hierarchical structure' but fails to fully elaborate, suggesting a reluctance to engage with deeper implications.

The 'Anthropological Cosmological Principle'

The article then shifts to the 'primitive structure of the universe' and the 'anthropological cosmological principle.' This principle suggests that the initial conditions of the universe must have been such that they led to the emergence of human life. The authors examined argue that the universe's expansion and size are constrained by the time required for stellar nucleosynthesis to create essential elements for life. If the universe were smaller, there wouldn't be enough time; if it were larger, stars would have already exhausted their fuel. This principle implies that the existence of humanity imposes limits on the possible types of universes that can be observed, raising profound questions about the universe's structure and our place within it.

Critique of 'Ratology' and Ideological Influences

The author broadens the critique to what they term 'ratology,' which they define as stemming from scholasticism and ideology. This approach is characterized by dogmatic reasoning, the systematic justification of revealed truths through logic, and the creation of 'concentrationary universes' of ideologies. The author uses the example of Lyssenko's 'dialectical biology' and the 'mystical component' found in extremist doctrines like dialectical materialism, theology, and fascism. The author also critiques Darwinism, particularly neo-Darwinism, arguing that it is founded on 'materialist presuppositions' and serves ideological purposes, citing Marx's view of Darwin's work as a basis for the 'class struggle.'

The Problem of Testability in Scientific Theories

The article discusses the difficulty of testing 'ratological' theories, which often lack precise predictions or are based on erroneous or presupposed philosophical premises. When testable predictions are made, they are frequently falsified. Examples cited include Darwin, Freud, and Monod. The author highlights Jacques Monod's assertion that life's emergence was arbitrary and a result of chance, a position that sparked debate about the meaning of life and humanity's place in the universe. Monod's view that the universe was not 'pregnant with life' is presented as a consequence of his philosophical stance.

The 'Egoist Gene' and Teleonomy

The discussion extends to the concept of the 'egoist gene' in molecular biology, as discussed by Curice Arvonny in *Le Monde*. The author criticizes the anthropomorphic language used to describe genes and the tendency to introduce moral notions into science. The article also touches upon the idea of 'teleonomy' (purpose-driven behavior in living organisms), which Monod used to describe biological structures and performances, but which the author suggests is a way to acknowledge purpose without explicitly admitting it, thereby avoiding the 'divine strategist.'

Science and Metaphysics: A Convergence?

The author argues that contemporary science, particularly in fields like cosmology and evolutionary biology, is increasingly converging with metaphysics. They contend that the 'rationalist' approach, often presented as objective, can be a form of ideology. The article cites Pierre Thuillier's work on physics and the irrational, suggesting that even in scientific debates, metaphysical questions arise. The author concludes that the distinction between science and metaphysics is becoming blurred, and that 'ratologists' are failing to grasp this fundamental shift.

Conclusion and Recurring Themes

The article concludes by characterizing 'ratology' as superstition and contradiction. It posits that the 'inevitable' intrusion of metaphysics into science is a significant development, and that the media often obscures this reality. The author expresses a sense of relief that the 'ratologists' are finally being challenged, suggesting that a new era of understanding is emerging. The recurring themes include the critique of ideological biases in science, the philosophical underpinnings of scientific theories, the limitations of strict rationalism, and the growing interaction between science and metaphysics, particularly in the context of cosmology and the study of life.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently promotes a critical perspective on scientific discourse, challenging what it perceives as dogmatic or ideologically driven approaches. It advocates for a more open and philosophical engagement with scientific questions, particularly in areas like cosmology and the study of life. The editorial stance appears to favor a nuanced view that acknowledges the limitations of pure rationalism and the potential for metaphysics to inform scientific understanding, while simultaneously critiquing what it terms 'ratology' – a rigid, uncritical adherence to established scientific dogma.

This issue of "LES OVNI DU PASSE" (UFOs of the Past) delves into the historical enigma of a purported satellite of Venus, often referred to as 'Neith' or 'Vulcain'. The cover headline boldly proclaims, "THE TRACE OF THE BLOOD OF THE SACRIFICED NOMMO MADE VENUS INVISIBLE, AND FROM THE CORDON AT THE CENTER A SMALL STAR CAME OUT WHICH ACCOMPANIED VENUS."

The Enigma of Venus' Satellite

The article begins by noting the general knowledge that Venus has no moons, yet paradoxically, astronomers since the 17th century have reported sightings of such a celestial body. This phenomenon, akin to the later debate over the intra-mercurial planet Vulcan, is explored through a catalogue of appearances.

Early Observations (17th-18th Centuries)

• Fontana (November 11, 1645): The first recorded observation by Fontana, who saw the object at the center of Venus' crescent.
• Paul Stroobant's Catalogue: Stroobant is credited with compiling multiple observations. He noted three more sightings by Fontana: November 15 (at each horn of the crescent), December 25 (near the upper edge of the planet), and January 22, 1646 (near the center).
• Jean-Dominique Cassini (January 25, 1672): Cassini observed a small crescent-shaped object, about a quarter of Venus' diameter, located approximately one diameter away to the west. He observed it again on August 28, 1686, at a distance of 3/5ths of Venus' diameter to the east, appearing as a faint, formless light with a phase similar to Venus.
• Short (October 23, 1740): Observed a small star near Venus, which later showed a phase identical to Venus. The object's diameter was estimated to be one-third of Venus', and its light was not as bright. Its distance was 10'2", and it disappeared at 8:15 AM.
• J. Mayer (May 20, 1759): Observed the satellite at a distance of one and a half diameters below Venus.
• J.L. Lagrange (February 11, 1761): Observed the satellite.
• Father Hell (1757): Believed he saw a bright point near Venus, but later concluded it was an optical illusion caused by the reflection of the planet's image on the telescope's lenses.
• Montaigne (May 3, 1761): Observed an object 20' from Venus, noting its similar phase. He repeated the observation several times, suggesting it might not be a star.
• Scheuten (June 6, 1761): Saw the object at the center of the sun.
• Roedkier (June 28, 1761): Observed the object, and on the following day, saw it at 1/4 of Venus' diameter.
• Copenhagen Observatory (March 9-11, 1764): Observations recorded distances from Venus ranging from 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 diameters.
• Monbarron (March 15, 1764): Observed the object.
• Harrebaw (January 3, 1768): Observed the satellite at a distance of one diameter of Venus.

The Debate and Skepticism (19th Century onwards)

The article notes that for twenty-seven years, astronomers searched in vain for this object. The text highlights the inconsistency in descriptions, with some reporting a large disk and others a small star. It suggests that some observations in March 1761 might have been Uranus, discovered later.

The author questions the origins of these observations, suggesting that personal sentiments often influenced scientific discourse. Several astronomers are mentioned as having differing opinions:

• Bertrand: Provided a vague response.
• F. Arago: Also offered less definitive statements.
• Amédé Guillemin: Did not believe in the satellite.
• Camille Flammarion: Hypothesized asteroids between Mars and Jupiter.

Belgian astronomers MM. Houzeau and Stroobant took firm positions in 1884 and 1887.

• J.C. Houzeau (1882): Declared that astronomers now knew it was a false image, an illusion, and that such observations were no longer paid attention to.
• J.C. Houzeau (1884): Baptized the enigmatic object 'Neith' and proposed an orbit where 5 revolutions of Venus equaled 1 revolution of Neith, suggesting an observation every 2 years and 54 days.

Paul Stroobant is presented as having definitively closed the debate with his sagacious analysis. He demonstrated that observations made with an 80x magnification telescope could reveal eighth and ninth magnitude stars near Venus. He concluded that the August 7, 1761 observation was likely due to the star 71 Orionis. Stroobant also showed that it was possible to see ninth magnitude stars within minutes of arc from Venus. He further analyzed observations from 1740, 1764, and 1768, identifying specific stars (like Librea) as the likely sources of these sightings. Stroobant also addressed the June 6, 1761 observation, suggesting the 'black spot' seen was a characteristic of the sun, not a transiting object, and that Cassini's, Thury's, and others' observations proved no object crossed the sun that day. He also noted that astronomers in Copenhagen saw nothing on June 28-30, 1761.

Conclusion on the Venus Satellite

The article concludes that the satellite of Venus never existed as a real celestial body. It posits that visual observations without telescopes were unreliable, and that significant astronomical events should have been more consistently recorded. The author suggests a dual explanation: confusion with stars and optical effects, possibly exacerbated by self-suggestion. The 'satellite of Venus', whether called Neith or d'Alembert, existed only in the imagination of those who claimed to see it, a point demonstrated by Paul Stroobant since 1887.

UFOs in Russia

The issue then shifts to UFO reports from Russia, beginning with observations of luminous phenomena near the Moon.

Russian Lunar Observations

• H.I. Potter (July 18, 1967): Observed a white, milky cloud-like object near the Moon, with a reddish-pink nucleus, which later became more diffuse and disappeared.
• Anatoli Sazanov (August 8, 1967): Observed a symmetrical crescent with narrow, ribbon-like emissions, flying horizontally at 20 degrees north of the horizon, moving from the Big Dipper to Cassiopeia in 30 seconds. Its diameter was two-thirds that of the Moon, and it was described as reddish and less luminous. It was observed by nine scientists.

Unidentified Marine Objects (UMOs)

Vladimir Azhazha, a scientist at the USSR Academy of Sciences' Underwater Research Center, has researched UMOs. He reported on a luminous white point escorting a research vessel, moving in opposition to the ship's direction at 150-200 meters depth. The object was also detected by sonar and appeared to fragment into eight parts or rays. Azhazha also noted an OVNI that followed a motor vessel for 36 minutes.

OVNI in Distress

An OVNI reportedly landed on Lake Blans in the Vologodskaya Oblast, sinking and remaining submerged for several days before taking off, displacing a massive amount of earth.

Other Russian OVNI Cases

• Vassili Bradski (February 1961): Discovered a hole in the ice of a lake near Leningrad, measuring 30m long, 15m wide, and 3m deep. Black spheres were found on the bank, and a 100m trace was found at the bottom of the lake. The ice near the hole turned green, and an excavation was found at the lake's bottom.
• Pacific Coast (July 25, 1957): Russian DCA batteries fired on luminous OVNI without success.
• Ousovo (August 31, 1961): Two silver OVNI hovered over the locality, causing vehicles at a level crossing to stall until the OVNI departed.
• Odessa Region (April 1966): A Commander piloting a plane detected an OVNI at high altitude, which was also detected by ground stations. The object descended for 45 minutes.
• Serpoukhov (October 1977): An OVNI was sighted near Serpoukhov.

Humanoids

• V.K. Arsenyev (July 11, 1908): While in the Ussuri region, Arsenyev encountered tracks of human feet. A form then concealed itself, and his dog became fearful. When Arsenyev threw a stone, the form fled with wing-like sounds into the fog. Local people spoke of a flying man whose tracks appeared and disappeared inexplicably.
• Borisoglebsk (Before 1977): Military personnel observed a hemispherical dome-shaped craft flying over a road. The hemisphere was transparent, revealing two human-like figures inside.

Historical Context and Scientific Debate in the USSR

The issue touches upon the Soviet approach to UFO research, referencing the work of Dr. Felix Youri Zigel. Zigel published articles on flying saucers, exploring hypotheses such as hoaxes, optical illusions, secret terrestrial technology, unknown material phenomena, or advanced extraterrestrial civilizations.

• Dr. Zigel's Work: He was a professor at the Moscow Institute of Aeronautics and was involved in a Moscow observation center for UFOs. He believed that UFOs were a real phenomenon and that their nature and intentions remained a secret.
• Soviet Media and Official Stance: Zigel's work appeared in publications like 'Soviet Weekly' and 'Soviet Life'. However, a strong counter-argument was published in 'Pravda' on February 29, 1968, by E. Mustel and others, who dismissed UFO reports as sensationalist and anti-scientific, asserting that observed objects were of a known nature.
• Official Committees: A commission to study UFOs was formed under the Cosmonautical Commission of the Union. However, an 'OVNI Section' of the Committee of Astronautics, chaired by General Porfiri Stolyarov, was dissolved by the Central Committee of DOSAAF in late November 1967 without informing its members.
• Official Publications: Despite the official stance, the article mentions that official, though restricted, documents on UFOs have been published in Russia. These include volumes on 'Observations of UFOs above the USSR' and 'The Phenomenon of UFOs in the Hydrosphere', which reportedly analyzed 'angel hair' emissions from OVNI, finding them to contain boron and silica.

The Prophets of the 21st Century

The issue briefly mentions Konstantin-Eduardovitch Tsiolkovski, a Russian scientist born in 1857, who envisioned future interplanetary spacecraft.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The central theme is the historical investigation of anomalous aerial phenomena, particularly the purported satellite of Venus. The magazine presents a detailed account of sightings and the subsequent scientific debate, leaning towards a skeptical conclusion regarding the Venus satellite, attributing it to misidentification and illusion. The latter part of the issue broadens the scope to include UFO and humanoid sightings from Russia, highlighting both popular interest and official scientific skepticism within the Soviet context. The editorial stance appears to be one of thorough historical research and critical analysis, acknowledging the existence of unexplained phenomena while cautioning against unsubstantiated claims.

This issue, identified as "28" with issue number "7" and dated December 1976, is published by CSERU in France. It features articles exploring speculative scientific theories, extraterrestrial contact, and the phenomenon of UFOs.

Exploration of Cosmic Spaces and Human Evolution

The issue begins by referencing H.G. Wells' works, particularly "The Will of the Universe, Intelligent Forces Unknown," where he posited that evolved beings from other planets could travel between worlds and communicate with equals. Wells also suggested extraterrestrials might resemble humans. A significant anecdote recounts a 1920 conversation between Wells and Lenin, where Wells predicted that advanced human technology could alter global situations and render Marxist concepts obsolete. Lenin reportedly agreed, stating that unlimited technical potential would end violence as a means of progress.

7,000 Times the Speed of Light: Veynik's Theory

Albert Iosifovitch Veynik, a member of the Academy of Sciences of Byelorussia, is presented for his 1974 work on a revolutionary theory of six physical fields in the universe. Three fields are known, while three are more subtle. Veynik's unified field theory encompasses electromagnetic, gravitational, and nuclear forces. He posits that space itself is a unique form of matter and movement, with smaller particles having stronger bonds. This theory suggests the potential to achieve speeds of 7,000 times the speed of light, enabling interstellar travel within days. Scientist Vladimir G. Azhazha infers from this that extraterrestrials must use communication methods other than radio waves, questioning the efforts of radio astronomers and their alleged "anti-UFO hysteria" in the USA.

The Bermuda Triangle

Mathematician A.I. Yelkin is cited for definitively rejecting the hypothesis that UFOs are responsible for disappearances in the Bermuda Triangle. According to an article in "Izvestia" (December 5, 1976), reported by "The Times," Yelkin noted that disappearances coincided with syzygies (periods of full and new moon). He deduced that these periods create increased gravitational constraints, leading to magnetic perturbations that disrupt guidance systems and cause accidents.

Quo Vadis? The Future of Ufology

This section contemplates the future of ufology. It quotes Vassili Kouprevitch, President of the Academy of Sciences of Byelorussia, who speculated in 1967 that extraterrestrials might be visiting Earth discreetly. The article questions this cautious perspective, suggesting it's akin to Tchekhov's characters denying the impossible. It aligns with the view of Gustave Naan, who stated that common sense is a product of experience and prejudice, and a poor guide in entirely new situations.

The Theory of Secret Contact

In his article "Philosophical Aspects of the Problem of Interplanetary Contacts," Youri A. Fomine, a specialist in automation and telemechanics, proposes the existence of an "active occult" form of contact. He suggests that extraterrestrial beings observe and gather information from humans without direct interaction, leaving them free will. Fomine believes numerous clues point to past contacts where humans played a passive role, evidenced by inexplicable material vestiges in ancient monuments and texts. He argues that such subtle contacts are most effective when the recipient civilization is less developed, serving to stimulate their evolution.

Jean Bastide's Notes

This section contains a list of references and notes, including citations from "Soviet Life," "Mufon," "UFO Investigator," "Phenomena Spatiaux," "Ouest France," and various books and journals related to UFO research.

Letter from Jean-François Gille to Eduardo de Rafael

This open letter, dated December 9, 1981, from Jean-François Gille (Doctor of Sciences, Research Fellow at CNRS) to Eduardo de Rafael (Director of LARORA Laboratory, C.P.T., Section 2, CNRS), expresses Gille's reluctance to detail his research due to anticipated skepticism from the scientific community. He states that for over three years, he has been investigating what is popularly known as the UFO problem.

Gille outlines his conclusions:

1. Extraterrestrial Civilizations: Since the late 1940s, Earth has been surrounded by extraterrestrial civilizations that predate humanity by millions of years. He alludes to numerous indicators, even for academics, that support this claim.
2. UFOs as Vehicles: Some UFOs are identified as vehicles from these spacefaring civilizations. These include "mother ships" and smaller "shuttles" (approximately 5 meters in wingspan), with reliable witnesses including pilots and radar operators.
3. Inaccessibility and Presence: These civilizations are currently inaccessible to human initiative but exist within our environment, though mostly imperceptible. Gille suggests that most civilizations may not inhabit the same continuum, but quantum mechanics and the "Many World Theory" might explain their presence and potential interactions, especially when a UFO becomes visible.
4. Scientific Community's Abandonment: Gille accuses the scientific community of abandoning its post and actively denying the UFO problem for decades, calling it an "intellectual resignation" of "exceptional gravity." He expresses shame at belonging to a community that betrays its mission to inform by leaving another social organization – the Army – to exclusively handle the confrontation and study of this radical unknown.

Gille criticizes the academic community's condescension and moral superiority complex towards this subject, suggesting it's time for a "Canossa" moment. He contrasts this with the "Scientific American" article on "Transvestism of Sexual Signals in Fireflies," implying the scientific community prioritizes trivial research over significant mysteries.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue consistently explores the intersection of advanced scientific theories, particularly in physics, with the unexplained phenomenon of UFOs. There's a strong undercurrent of critique towards the mainstream scientific establishment for its perceived dismissal and skepticism regarding UFOs, advocating for a more open and courageous approach to investigating these mysteries. The publication, through its various contributors, seems to champion unconventional scientific ideas and the pursuit of knowledge beyond established paradigms, particularly in the context of potential extraterrestrial intelligence and contact.