Realite ou Fiction - No 09 - 1981

Magazine Overview

This issue, number 9, of 'Realite ou Fiction' was published in November 1981 by the Groupe Privé Ufologique Nancéien. The cover features an illustration of a town with a large sphere in the sky, under the headline 'OBSERVATION DIURNE' (Daytime Observation).

Editorial

The editorial, signed by Raoul Robé, reflects on the year 1981, noting it was not a year of intense UFO manifestations in the region or nationally, but that the autumn brought its usual share of observations. The group investigated several cases in the Meurthe-et-Moselle region, which are presented in this issue. Robé highlights the Magny case (57) as particularly interesting due to its spectacular nature (immense size, color changes, slow evolution) observed over a populated area for a significant duration. He references his previous article in 'Special ECU' suggesting that some phenomena might only be observable from particular viewpoints. The editorial also touches upon inter-group relations, mentioning the 10th session of the Comité Nord-Est des Groupes Ufologiques (CNEGU) held in Nancy, where five associations participated. A catalog of 80 regional observations was compiled, and the committee resolved to undertake specific studies on information gathered over three years. The editorial encourages collaboration and unity among groups across France.

Following the editorial, Raoul Robé lists several sky surveillance dates and brief reports: May 8th in Amance (54) with 3 unidentified yellow lights; May 16th in Amance (54) - RAS; May 10th on the plateau of Walzéville (54) - RAS; August 15th in Bouxières-aux-Dames - RAS; September 18th in Bouxières then Amance - RAS; October 3rd in Bouzières with fireworks over Nancy; and October 17th in Laneuvelotte (54) - RAS.

Un OVNI sur le « schoutt » de Magny ?

This section details the Magny UFO sighting, which occurred on Monday, March 30, 1981, around 11:30 AM. The event was triggered by an article in the 'Républicain Lorrain' newspaper. Approximately thirty inhabitants of the 'Hanneaux-Barral' neighborhood witnessed a flying object above their homes. Children leaving school first noticed a sphere above Place Frecot. It was initially immobile, then began changing colors before moving slowly. Witness M. Schoumer described it as enormous, capable of containing half of a building, remaining stationary for about five minutes, and then ascending rapidly towards the clouds, disappearing at high speed. The phenomenon was reportedly silent. Other witnesses, including Mmes Boim, Weisse, and Meziany, confirmed the description. The object's appearance and behavior are described in detail: a perfect sphere with a metallic aspect reflecting sunlight, changing colors (red, blue, black, white), no sound, and a noticeable atmospheric disturbance around it. Its dimensions were estimated as very large, comparable to a building, and its altitude was imprecise, ranging from rooftop level to higher. The distance to the object was estimated at over 500 meters. The report notes that the phenomenon caused perturbations in transmitted TV signals.

The investigation involved interviewing four people, who initially reacted with aggression due to a misunderstanding about the investigators' intentions, possibly mistaking them for journalists or skeptics. The witnesses belonged to a lower social class with limited education, living in a marginalized area. Despite their initial defensiveness, they provided consistent accounts of the phenomenon. The report notes that the witnesses' descriptions of distances, dimensions, and altitude were imprecise and confused.

The investigation was initiated after contacting a witness by phone and visiting the site on April 10, 1981. The Gendarmerie of Metz-Queulou opened a case file. Responses from various organizations were also collected:

• Service météorologique de Tarbesline: Reported no unusual phenomena observed from the Net-Frescaty territory, with cloudy skies and intermittent rain. No unusual air traffic was noted.
• District Aérien de Lorraine: Stated they had no information regarding the phenomenon.
• Monsieur le Maire de Fleury (57): Reported no incidents signaled in Fleury.
• Service réparation, Société TRIVECOR: Indicated that TV signal perturbations were normal for the time and due to signal propagation, with no specific damages or breakdowns reported.

A polaroid photograph with a sketch of the location and estimated dimensions is included.

Observation Diurne d'une Sphère Métallique en Vol

This section provides a more structured account of the Magny observation. Date: Monday, March 30, 1981. Time: 11:15 AM to 11:45 AM (half an hour). Location: Magny (57), south of Metz. Number of witnesses: 30, interrogated in a neighborhood.

The event began with children and adolescents in the Hanneaux-Barral neighborhood noticing a sphere-like object in the sky. It moved slowly along the rooftops, without sound, reflecting sunlight and changing colors. Adults and eventually the entire neighborhood gathered to watch. The object remained stationary over a house on Rue Pioche for about a quarter of an hour, emitting a visible heat or gas effect, before ascending rapidly and disappearing. The local press was contacted but reportedly did not respond immediately. Other inhabitants of Magny and Fleury also claimed to have observed the phenomenon.

• Description of the phenomenon:
• Shape: Perfect sphere, no apparent structural details.
• Aspect: Metallic, reflecting solar rays, changing colors (red, blue, white, black).
• Sound: Absent.
• Atmospheric Effects: Presence of atmospheric disturbance around the object.
• Dimensions: Estimated as very large, comparable to a building.
• Altitude: Imprecise, near rooftops or higher.
• Distance to phenomenon: Imprecise, estimated at + 500 m.
• Remarks: Perturbations in transmitted signals were noted.

Witnesses' accounts:
Four individuals were interviewed. They described the object as metallic, reflecting sunlight, and changing colors. It moved slowly, then ascended rapidly. The witnesses were described as belonging to a low social class with limited education, living in a 'ghetto' area, and generally poorly regarded by the population, which might explain the initial skepticism from journalists. The report states that these individuals appeared credible, and their descriptions of the phenomenon's appearance and evolution were consistent.

Observation Nocturne d'un Objet en Vol

This section details a nocturnal observation that occurred on Monday, April 18, 1981, between 11:35 PM and 11:45 PM, near Walzéville and Nancy. The witness was alone, using a Citizen-Band radio, when a light moving in the sky caught their attention. The object was described as a very oval shape, moving rectilinearly from south-southwest to northeast at a speed faster than a jet plane. It disappeared behind the plateau of Walzéville. A few seconds later, the same object reappeared in the same location and traversed its trajectory in reverse at the same speed. The witness could not observe the end of the phenomenon as it was hidden by the terrain.

• Description of the phenomenon:
• Shape: Oval, slightly elongated.
• Dimensions: Small (no precise measurement).
• Color: Green (pantone green) at the front, blue (pantone 310) at the rear.
• Altitude: Estimated at 12 degrees.

Reconstitution of the case:
Includes a sketch of the object and the location.

Second Nocturnal Observation

This section describes another nocturnal observation, likely from the same night or a similar period, involving a large meteor. The report states that several people observed a large meteor moving from South to North at high altitude, disappearing high in the sky. The time of observation and the general shape coincide with the previous description, but the angle of view and the 'return' of the object suggest a different explanation, possibly a meteor.

• Description of the phenomenon:
• Shape: Circular, oval.
• Dimensions: Small.
• Color: Blue (pantone 300) at the front, orange (pantone 151) at the rear.
• Altitude: Estimated at 300 meters.
• Direction: 140° (53) towards 320 (0).

Reconstitution of the case:
Includes sketches and a map of the region indicating the direction of the phenomenon. The map shows axes for extinction (35° above horizon), a bolide around 11:10 PM, and the start of observation. It notes that for the first two witnesses, it was a single observation, while for the third, it was a bolide with a rectilinear trajectory and high extinction.

Editorial Stance and Analysis

An unsigned section, likely an editorial or analytical piece, addresses the skepticism surrounding UFO phenomena. It argues against dismissing all sightings as collective hallucinations, lies, or delusions, comparing the situation to how fundamental science accepts the existence of particles like gluons or quarks based on rare and complex observations. The author criticizes those who deny the existence of UFOs based on subjective 'science' and calls for on-site investigation rather than armchair analysis. The piece also warns against the creation of sects and cults around UFO beliefs. It posits that UFOs are likely piloted by intelligent beings, raising questions about their origin, purpose (surveillance, salvation, espionage), propulsion, and ability to evade detection. The author concludes by emphasizing the need for serious ufologists who investigate witnesses and phenomena rather than those who merely 'dismantle' cases with books or turn ufology into a spectacle of money, cults, and fraud.

Le rapt en OVNI de Cergy démystifié

This is a brief news item dated June 6, 1981, from 'EST RÉPUBLICAIN' (edition Pont-à-Mousson). It reports on a CNES (Centre National d'Études Spatiales) report that demystifies the famous Cergy-Pontoise UFO abduction case from late 1979. The report, from the GEPAN service specializing in unidentified aerospace phenomena, concludes that the alleged abduction is likely fabricated. The victim claimed to have been abducted by a UFO on November 20, 1979, and returned on December 3, 1979. Confusing explanations and witness testimonies had initially suggested collective hallucination or a hoax. The individual involved had since participated in conferences and written articles, including an announcement of an extraterrestrial landing in a Jura tunnel on August 14, 1980, which did not occur, disappointing thousands who had gathered.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are daytime UFO sightings, detailed case investigations, and the challenges of ufological research. The editorial stance is one of advocating for a serious, scientific, and collaborative approach to understanding UFO phenomena, while criticizing skepticism and sensationalism. There is a clear emphasis on witness credibility and the need for thorough investigation, as well as a concern about the potential for exploitation and the formation of cults within the ufology community.