UFO Informations - Special, CECRU, 3e session, 1978

Magazine Overview

Title: U.F.O. INFORMATIONS
Issue: NUMERO SPECIAL
Volume: 3e
Date: June 3-4, 1978
Publisher: A.A.M.T.
Country: France
Language: French

This special issue of U.F.O. INFORMATIONS details the proceedings of the 3rd European Coordination Committee for Ufological Research (CECRU) meeting, held in Imbours, Ardèche, France, on June 3rd and 4th, 1978. The meeting was organized by A.A.M.T. and brought together representatives from 19 French-speaking ufological groups, with approximately 90 people in attendance.

Meeting Organization and Atmosphere

The meeting began with an opening address by the president of A.A.M.T., the previous session's organizer (C.S.ER.U.), and the secretary-general of the upcoming session's organizer (SPEPSE). Following administrative preliminaries and correspondence, the constitution of various commissions was announced. The report notes that the meeting, despite good weather, started with some difficulties due to the meeting room being inadequate for the number of participants, leading to a 'hubbub'. The organizers acknowledged this as a sign of success but highlighted the need for better discipline in oral interventions and for future organizers to account for the number of attendees.

Commissions and Their Work

Several commissions were formed to address specific aspects of ufological research and coordination:

• Commission CECRU (Administrative): Focused on organizational issues and the smooth running of the committee, as well as reviewing the cooperation protocol.
• Commission Veillées et Liaison-Radio: Tasked with discussing radio surveillance and the functioning of vigils.
• Commission Enquêtes: Worked on a standardized observation report type, developed by SLEPS (Switzerland).
• Commission Symbolique: Aimed to centralize information for a common symbolic system for observation catalogs. This commission was postponed due to a lack of members to work on the data provided by GPUN.
• Commission Détection: Presented various detection equipment, including a mini-detection station from SLEPS with advanced features and a more modest but operational station from GRIPHOM. No comparative tests were conducted.
• Commission Géologie: A proposal was made to study sites of close-up observations from a geological perspective, but this commission was postponed due to a lack of participants.
• Commission "Contactés": An impromptu commission formed to study the phenomenon of 'contactees'.

These commissions met separately on Saturday afternoon, and an oral report was presented to all participants on Sunday morning.

Key Discussions and Decisions

Administrative and Protocol Matters:

• Group Participation: A significant question was whether CECRU meetings should be open only to groups that signed the protocol or if other groups could attend as observers. A decision was deferred to the Paris meeting in October 1978, allowing for a year of observation and 'road testing' of the CECRU's functioning.
• Independent Researchers: The admission of independent researchers or 'ufologists' not affiliated with regional groups was also discussed and deferred to the Paris meeting.
• Unauthorized Claims: The issue of groups (like KRUPTOS of Lyon) claiming to be CECRU members without being affiliated was raised, highlighting a 'deontological' problem and a lack of honesty. The protocol's article III 14 was reiterated, stating that only groups that have officially approved and signed the participation request are CECRU members.
• Adhesion Process: The problem of groups with unknown or questionable seriousness adhering to CECRU was noted, with the expectation that this would be clarified over time.
• Specialist Directory: A proposal was made to create a directory of specialists from each group and isolated individuals to facilitate contacts and exchanges. This list would be compiled by SPEPSE.
• Surveillance Nights: The CECRU participates in surveillance nights organized by 'national' groups, particularly those supported by SVEPS (Toulon), and will continue this collaboration. It was emphasized that fixed dates for these events should be maintained to avoid scattering efforts.
• Protocol Renewal: An annual renewal of the cooperation protocol was planned to update information on group presidents and representatives.
• Protocol Modifications: Several modifications to the protocol were approved by the attendees, detailed in an addendum. Absent groups could send their remarks or refusals to A.A.M.T. before the Paris meeting; silence would be considered approval.

Specific Group Activities and Presentations:

• Group 03100: Presented a series of remarkable slides recreating UFO case scenarios, including 'classic' cases and 'third type' encounters. This work required over 2000 hours and generated many requests for copies.
• J.C. Fumoux (ADEPS): Presented slides taken on July 14, 1977, in Antibes, with analysis results from a CNRS laboratory.

Future Meetings:

The responsible parties for the CECRU groups met to draw conclusions from the 3rd session and prepare for the 4th session, scheduled for October 14-15, 1978, in Dourdan, near Paris, under the auspices of SPEPSE.

Annexed Documents:

The report mentions several annexed documents: a supplement to the ufological directory, the new telephone alert table, the list of CECRU member groups, and a response questionnaire for protocol signatories to be returned to A.A.M.T. by September 23rd.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the organization and coordination of ufological research in France and Europe. The CECRU serves as the central body for this effort, aiming to standardize methodologies, facilitate communication, and foster collaboration among diverse groups. The editorial stance appears to be one of promoting structured research, clear communication, and a professional approach to ufology. There is a clear emphasis on the need for discipline, clear protocols, and accurate representation of affiliations. The issue also highlights the challenges of managing a growing and diverse community, including geographical dispersion and varying levels of engagement.

Important Note: A reminder is included for groups to return their responses for the reservation of the 4th CECRU session by September 9, 1978, to SPEPSE.

This document comprises several reports from commissions related to ufology, likely from a French-speaking publication. The primary focus is on the activities and findings of the CECRU (Comité d'Etudes des Phénomènes Célestes et de Recherches Ufologiques), detailing its operational protocols, research initiatives, and organizational structure. The reports cover aspects such as group coordination, observation methodologies, radio communication standards, and the challenging subject of 'contactees'. The issue date is not explicitly stated, but references to '1978' in the text suggest it pertains to that period.

Commission Reports

13/ National Groupings and Choices

This section discusses the challenge of defining 'national' ufological groups, particularly in France. It notes that groups like GEPA, LDLN, and OURANOS cannot currently be considered national due to their regional audience. The question is raised whether groups with correspondents in various national locations can claim national status. This will be debated at the next meeting. The issue of Belgian, Luxembourgish, and Swiss groups is also mentioned, with their smaller territorial coverage being a factor.

14/ CNEGU (Comité Nord Est des Groupements Ufologiques)

The commission discussed the creation of CNEGU, an entity aligned with the CECRU's spirit. While a principle agreement was given, the commission awaits further information before making a definitive decision.

15/ GIU's Press Service Proposal

Alain BIDOU, a member of CECRU from GIU, proposed creating a press service to compile and distribute articles received throughout the year, including publication dates, sources, and author names. This project, if accepted by CECRU and if GIU can ensure regular distribution to participating groups, is seen as an excellent idea for sharing information.

16/ Thierry PINVIDIC and MAGONIA Project

Thierry PINVIDIC of SPEPSE explained his MAGONIA project and its circular. He emphasized the need for research coordination, stating, "CECRU is the attempt at research coordination; I propose a research work; we will see if French ufology has ideas." He defined 16 work regions, presenting an opportunity for CECRU to test its effectiveness.

Important Note on Press Relations

It was unanimously decided not to invite the press to CECRU deliberations. However, the organizing group is responsible for press contacts and drafting the final press release. The response questionnaire regarding CECRU's work is only sent to signatory groups.

Report on Observation and Radio Links Commission

This commission aimed to discuss surveillance evenings and radio links.

#### A/ Surveillance Evenings (Veillées)

• Two approaches to surveillance evenings were identified:
• Some groups adopt a parapsychological approach (ABEPS, KRUPTOS), which they believe can even lead to OVNI appearances, using these evenings for contact attempts.
• The majority of groups conduct classic surveillance without attempting to provoke phenomena.

Groups participating in monthly SVEPS surveillance evenings expressed satisfaction with the organization by Eric COHEN and his team, noting prompt responses to correspondence and regular reports. Questions were raised about the utility of these evenings and the potential exploitation of the observations. The SVEPS centralizes reports, and suggestions are encouraged from all participating groups. The recommendation is for groups to continue the surveillance, with centralized reporting by SVEPS, and to send suggestions to Eric COHEN. Groups are also free to participate in other surveillance activities.

#### B/ Radio Links

• For groups equipped with transmitters/receivers (TX), several rules are to be followed for radio communication during OVNI surveillance:
• Channel 3 (26.985 MHz) is designated for OVNI surveillance. Channel 17 (27.165 MHz) is an alternative. Participants should not scan all 40 channels for DX (long-distance communication) or social exchanges.
• Avoid personal conversations on channel 3; remain on standby and listen.
• Request non-surveillance OMs (radio amateurs) to change frequency (QSY) to another channel.
• Announce the start of surveillance with QTH (location) and the end by giving the call sign.
• Leave a pause between reception and response.
• Repeat messages if necessary.

The DRAGON 30 (VERONICA) station is considered best placed to serve as a command post (P.C.) and handle QSP (message relays). These rules, to be followed monthly, are deemed achievable given the remaining days for modulation and DX. The report concludes that radio links are an accessory to surveillance but are valuable for reducing isolation and have sensitized many radio amateurs in the SUD-EST region to the OVNI phenomenon.

Report of the Investigation Commission

This commission was tasked with studying an observation report format developed by SLEPS (Switzerland). The commission included representatives from AAMT, ADRUP, GERO, SPEPSE, SLEPS, and VERONICA. Initially, there was hesitation to begin the discussion, but the SLEPS report was presented as coherent, simple, clear, and complete.

Objections were raised regarding questions about the witness's health, treatments, and alcohol consumption, which were deemed too intrusive. It was clarified that the report format was for observation data, not a full investigation, though it could potentially serve as an investigation support, leading to errors. The report format was also criticized for insufficient space for the evolution of the observed phenomenon (colors, shapes, speed, trajectory). While the existing sketch was meant to address this, it was suggested to add notes on the sketch regarding times, speeds, shapes, and angles of observation.

The SPEPSE representative noted the format's inadequacy for 'sea observations,' and a supplementary 'marine' model was requested, with SPEPSE agreeing to draft it. Similarly, a 'flight observation' format was deemed necessary, and ADRUP agreed to draft an 'air' model. The SLEPS 'Earth' model was to be used immediately by groups represented on the commission for reports transmitted outside the drafting group, including to external organizations like GEPAN. The commission separated with the resolution that the general assembly would decide on the 'systematization' of report transmission. The rapporteur expressed a personal wish for all interesting reports to be systematically transmitted to a central CECRU body for synthesis, computer filing, and information retrieval for member groups.

The SLEPS proposed coding reports for utilization, processing, and computerization. The rapporteur felt SLEPS had successfully imposed its views, but expressed satisfaction if it led to centralization without vanity hindering coordination. The rapporteur believes that report processing, cross-referencing, and centralization are areas where CECRU can best demonstrate its effectiveness.

Report of the Contact Commission

This commission, improvised at Imbours, aimed to approach the phenomenon of 'contactees' in ufology with caution. The members agreed that the 'contactee' issue is one of the most 'poisonous' in ufology but should not be rejected outright. Historically, approaches have been extreme, either fully believing or dismissing the phenomenon. The commission judged it time for an OBJECTIVE study.

Even if the 'contactee' issue has no direct link to ufology, it could reveal much about human nature. A psycho-sociological analysis of 'contactees' and their entourage is deemed necessary.

For a healthy approach, the commission proposed:
1. Compile a comprehensive list of 'contactees'.
2. Record their declarations integrally without commentary, criticism, or judgment. Aimé MICHEL's attitude was cited: "The witness declares this... we simply note that he declared this..."
3. Publish the content of these declarations (and their context) rapidly and integrally, allowing interested researchers to review them. This publication would not require revealing names, thus protecting the 'contactees' (though the report notes it's a shame that cases like 'Roméo Charlie' haven't been detailed).

In a second phase, the study of these cases will commence, prioritizing the 'contactee' themselves over the content of their narrative, as the narrative's value depends on the narrator's credibility. This study must be conducted scientifically, adhering to scientific rules. Only scientists capable of correctly addressing the 'contactee' problem are neuro-psychiatrists, which presents difficulties. Neuro-psychiatrists may collect information subject to professional secrecy, making crucial investigation elements inaccessible to private/amateur ufologists due to ethical reasons.

In summary, the 'contactee' problem must be studied like any other, but with extreme caution. The problem will either be studied correctly (considering the implications) or not at all. Ufologists must realize that this problem will eventually be beyond their scope because they lack the methodology and means (e.g., electro-encephalograms). Their work will be to lay the groundwork for this new research, which may displease many, but it's important to recognize one's limitations.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this document revolve around the organization and standardization of ufological research in France. There's a strong emphasis on establishing protocols for observation, communication, and reporting to ensure a more systematic and credible approach to the study of UAP phenomena. The editorial stance appears to be one of promoting rigorous, scientific investigation while acknowledging the limitations and challenges faced by amateur ufologists, particularly concerning complex subjects like 'contactees'. The document advocates for collaboration and information sharing among groups, with CECRU acting as a central coordinating body. There's a clear push towards professionalism and a move away from purely speculative or unverified claims, while still encouraging open-mindedness and continued research.

This document appears to be a compilation of pages from a French publication, likely a newsletter or magazine focused on ufology. The primary content includes a telephone alert table, a list of signatory groups to a cooperation protocol, and a press release about a UFO congress. The date associated with the press release is Tuesday, June 6, 1978, suggesting the publication date is around early June 1978.

Telephone Alert Table

The first section is a "TABLEAU D'ALERTE TELEPHONIQUE" (Telephone Alert Table). It lists various groups (GROUPE) with associated phone numbers (NUMEROS) and contact names (NOMS), along with specific hours or conditions for contact (HEURES). The groups listed include AAMT, ADEPS Medit., AESV, ADRUP, AMATEURS D'INSOLITE, CEMOCPI, CERPI (Belgique), CLEU (Luxemb.), CSERU, GAU, GEOS, GERO, GIU (Belgique), GLRU, GPUN, GREPO, GRIPHOM, GTROVNI, GROUPE 03100, GNEOVNI, KRUPTOS, LDLN Isère, OURANOS Marseille, PALMOS, SLEPS Lausanne, SPEPSE, SVEPS, VERONICA, and CNRE. The contact hours vary widely, from "Aprés 19 h" (After 7 PM) to "Journée" (Daytime), "Repas/soir" (Meal/evening), "Samedi 16/20 h" (Saturday 4-8 PM), and specific times like "Travail 14h/16h" (Work 2-4 PM) or "de 9h à 11h" (from 9 to 11 AM).

List of Signatory Groups

The third page presents a "LISTE DES GROUPEMENTS SIGNATAIRES DU PROTOCOLE DE COOPERATION CE.C.R.U." (List of Signatory Groups to the CE.C.R.U. Cooperation Protocol). This list details 21 groups that have signed the protocol. For each group, it provides the group name and the name of the signatory president. Notable groups include A.D.E.P.S. Méditerranée, Les AMATEURS D'INSOLITE, C.E.MO.C.P.I., CERPI (Belgique), CLEU, C.SE.RU., G.E.O.S., G.E.RO., G.I.U., G.L.RU., GPUN, G.R.E.P.O., GRIPHOM, G.T.R.OVNI, Groupe PALMOS, S.L.E.P.S., VERONICA, SVEPS, and GNE.OVNI. The list also mentions "GR.EU. FUN." and provides the name "HAMMER Gilles (Resp UFO)" alongside one of the signatory presidents, suggesting his role in coordinating UFO research.

Press Release: UFO Congress in Imbours

The main article, a press release from "Dauphiné Libéré" dated Tuesday, June 6, 1978, reports on a congress titled "objets volants non identifiés" (unidentified flying objects) held in Imbours, Ardèche. The congress was organized by the "comité européen de coordination de la recherche ufologique" (CECRU), bringing together over 20 French-speaking groups. The stated goals were to strengthen and refine investigation methods and coordinate research on UFO phenomena. The participants worked in commissions focusing on areas such as investigations, sky detection, and close encounters (third type). The results of these commissions were presented to all members. A significant outcome was the unanimous adoption of a new, standardized investigation report format to be used by all member groups for analyzing UFO sightings on the ground, in the air, or at sea. The congress also featured the presentation of measurement and detection systems, including one that uses a micro-computer to record data from various sensors onto a cassette and display it on a television screen. The press release concludes by noting the dynamism of European ufology and expressing confidence that the next ufological gathering in Paris in October 1978 will enhance the credibility of UFO research.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is clearly ufology and the organized efforts to research and understand UFO phenomena. The publication seems to serve as a communication channel for these groups, providing contact information and reporting on their activities. The editorial stance, as reflected in the press release, is positive and forward-looking, emphasizing the professionalism, dynamism, and growing credibility of European ufological research. There is a clear focus on methodology, standardization of data collection, and technological advancements in detection and measurement.