Ufologie Contact - Series Nouvelle - No 08 - juil 1981

Magazine Overview

Title: UFOLOGIE CONTACT
Issue: N°8
Date: July 1981
Publisher: SPEISE
Country: France
Language: French

This issue of UFOLOGIE CONTACT, a French ufology magazine, presents a significant portion dedicated to the findings of a "Primer Seminorio de Estudio Integral del Fenómeno OVNI" (First Seminar on the Integral Study of the UFO Phenomenon). The seminar took place on August 30-31, 1968, at the Faculty of Medicine in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

UFOLOGIE CONTACT and UFOLOGIE CONTACT SPECIAL

The magazine outlines its publication structure, defining UFOLOGIE CONTACT as a voluntary bulletin for information, study, and research, open to contributions from anyone. UFOLOGIE CONTACT SPECIAL is described as a supplement focusing on significant technical, scientific, or ufological events and the advancements made by private researchers.

Subscription Conditions

Details are provided for subscriptions to both UFOLOGIE CONTACT (4 issues per year for 20.00 francs) and UFOLOGIE CONTACT SPECIAL (3 issues per year for 25.00 francs), with subscriptions commencing on January 1st of the current year.

Editorial and Administration

The publication's director is R. BONNAVENTUME, located in Marly-le-Roi, France. The editorial committee includes Th. PINVIDIO and J. 3CORNAUX. The issue is dated July 1981 and carries the ISSN designation.

Divers (Miscellaneous)

This section notes that published articles represent the authors' views. A specimen issue can be sent upon request, and letters to the editor must include a stamp for a reply. The magazine also invites amateur research associations and other publications to exchange their material as press copies.

Conclusions of the First Seminar on the Integral Study of the UFO Phenomenon

This is the core content of the issue, detailing the conclusions reached by the Argentine Association of Psychosynthesis and the Biopsychosynthesis Institute. The seminar aimed to harmonize various perspectives on UFO observations and experiences.

Key Findings on UFOs:

• Nature of Objects: The phenomena involve concrete elements or projections, currently unknown to our culture.
• Shape: Frequently ovoid, cylindrical, fusiform, truncated, or dirigible-like.
• Size: Highly variable, ranging widely.
• Sound: Emitted sounds are varied, including humming, whistling, turbine sounds, silence, and explosions.
• Propulsion: The propulsion energy is unknown.
• Fields: Characteristics of their own magnetic and gravitational fields are unknown.
• Movement: Displacement directions are diverse: ascending, descending, rectilinear, oblique, zigzagging, oscillating, regular, or irregular.
• Environment: Objects are observed in aerial, aquatic, and subaquatic environments; no land-based vehicle observations are known.
• Lights: Lights are of varied intensity and color, both inherent and projected. Changes in light color are hypothesized to be related to acceleration and deceleration.
• Observation Time: Phenomena are observed at all hours, preferably at night, attributed to their luminosity.
• Radiations: They emit invisible radiations, detectable by photographic plates, related to unknown wave lengths and frequencies.
• Morphology: The beings associated with these phenomena have a humanoid morphology.
• Size (Beings): Vary from 90 cm to 2.20 meters, with morphological and structural differences.
• Clothing: Their attire varies in type, related to their morphology and structure.
• Communication: Methods of communication include gestures inducing tranquility, visual elements (signs and symbols), vocalizations (hoarse, guttural, cavernous, metallic voices), and telepathy. One witness reported receiving phonetic sequences that were sent to a philologist for interpretation.
• Effects: Effects are categorized into three types:
• On Objects/Things: Interference with motors, vehicles, and electromagnetic apparatus, even those considered antimagnetic. Radioelectric interferences were also recorded.
• On Animals: Animals become agitated before the objects appear.
• On Humans: Observations link UFO presence to psychosomatic reactions like allergies, general fatigue, temporary vision problems, burns, muscular hypertension, and a degree of consciousness obfuscation. The origin and characteristics of these effects require further definition.
• Social Dynamics: The interaction between the UFO phenomenon and social dynamics is to be studied in a separate text.

Broader Implications and Extraterrestrial Intelligence:

• Extraterrestrial Study: Extraterrestrial beings are believed to be studying and controlling Earth constantly and globally.
• Superiority: Their science and powers are considered thousands of years superior to ours.
• Non-Aggression: Despite demonstrating their powers in various ways, no scientific proof of aggression, malevolence, death, or destruction caused by them has been found.
• Impending Contact: The increasing frequency of their incursions suggests a concrete and definitive contact is imminent.
• Human Evolution: This contact is expected to elevate humanity's scientific and spiritual levels, leading to a comprehension that actions should not be governed by egoism and uncontrolled ambition but by a higher purpose.
• Universal Order: The universe's divine power governs all worlds, and human beings are free to live in peace, love, multiply, and use science for progress.
• Inevitable Contact: The final contact with extraterrestrial beings is inevitable, akin to diverting the sun's rays.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine's stance, as evidenced by the detailed reporting of the seminar's conclusions, is one of serious, scientific inquiry into the UFO phenomenon. It presents findings as hypotheses for further study, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach. The editorial tone is open to exploring the unknown, encouraging contributions, and fostering a deeper understanding of extraterrestrial phenomena and their potential impact on humanity's scientific and spiritual development. There is a clear belief in the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life and their ongoing interaction with Earth, framed within a context of potential positive transformation for humankind.

Title: FRONTIERS OF SCIENCE
Issue: May-June 1981
Volume: 9
Cover Headline: What the U.S. Government Knows About Unidentified Flying Objects

This issue of "Frontiers of Science" delves into the U.S. government's knowledge and handling of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), drawing heavily on declassified documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act suits. The article, authored by Peter Gersten, argues that contrary to official statements, UFOs do exist, pose potential national security risks, and exhibit technological capabilities far beyond current understanding. The magazine criticizes the government's historical tendency to misinform the public and debunk reports, suggesting a deliberate cover-up.

Government's Knowledge and Stance on UFOs

The article highlights that over three thousand pages of classified documents from departments like the State, Army, Navy, Air Force, Defense, FBI, NSA, DIA, and CIA have been released. These documents reportedly contain testimony from scientists, military personnel, intelligence analysts, and law enforcement officers, indicating that Unidentified Flying Objects are real and that some are unconventional craft that pose a threat to national security and operate beyond present-day technological development.

A 1952 memorandum drafted for CIA Director Walter B. Smith recommended that the CIA and Department of Defense formulate a program to identify unidentified flying objects, stating that the situation had implications for national security that transcended single-service interests. However, the article suggests that a proposed National Security Council directive for such a program fell by the wayside, and twenty-nine years later, the issue still poses serious implications.

The government's official position, as stated by the Air Force in 1980, is that "No UFO reported, investigated and evaluated by the Air Force has ever given any indication of a threat to our national security." This is contrasted with evidence from DOD, USAF, and CIA documents.

UFOs as a Threat and Advanced Technology

Evidence presented suggests that UFOs pose a threat. Documents reveal that in October, November, and December of 1975, reliable military personnel repeatedly sighted unconventional aerial objects near nuclear-weapons storage areas, aircraft alert areas, and nuclear-missile control facilities at bases like Loring AFB, Maine; Wurtsmith AFB, Michigan; Malstrom AFB, Montana; Minot AFB, North Dakota; and Canadian Air Forces Station, Ontario. Many of these sightings were confirmed by radar. At Loring AFB, an object "demonstrated a clear intent on the weapons storage areas."

These incidents drew the attention of the CIA, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of Defense. Despite public statements about isolated incidents, an Air Force document indicated that "Security Option II" was implemented, and security measures were coordinated with 15 Air Force bases. An AF document also revealed an investigation into these incidents that found no explanation.

Further sightings are detailed: in January 1976, UFOs described as "gold or silver in color with blue light on top, hole in middle, and red light on bottom" were observed near Cannon AFB, N.M. In July 1976, a UFO was observed over the ammo storage area at Fort Richie, Maryland. Historical precedents from 1948-1950 also show UFOs sighted by "persons whose reliability is not questioned" near highly sensitive military installations, including nuclear weapons sites, which caused alarm among security officials.

A CIA document from 1952 noted that sightings of unexplained objects at great altitudes and high speeds near major U.S. defense installations "posed a threat to national security." The article concludes that the federal government has systematically misinformed the American people about the real threat posed by UFO encounters.

The government's position, according to the Air Force in 1960, is that "There has been no evidence submitted to or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized as 'unidentified' represent technological developments or principles beyond the range of present-day scientific knowledge."

However, official documents reveal hundreds of sighting reports, many radar-confirmed, describing unconventional objects with advanced performance characteristics. A Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document from September 19, 1976, details an encounter where American-made Iranian jets encountered UFOs exhibiting technology beyond present-day development. During this encounter, one F-4 jet lost all instrumentation and communications, and another F-4's weapons control panel became inoperable when the pilot attempted to fire.

The DIA evaluation of this incident called it an "outstanding report" due to high-credibility witnesses, radar confirmation, similar electromagnetic effects reported by three aircraft, physiological effects reported by crew members, and the UFOs' "inordinate amount of maneuverability."

A State Department message from March 1975 reported "strange machines" seen near Algerian military installations. Another message from Kuwait in November 1978 described a UFO that caused a Kuwaiti investigation committee to be appointed, as the object "seemingly did strange things to the automatic pumping equipment," causing it to shut down and restart automatically.

The article posits that the presence of highly sophisticated technology beyond current development seems obvious and questions why it is being ignored by the government.

A Question of Survival

The National Security Agency (NSA) report from 1968, titled "UFO Hypothesis and Survival Question," concluded that "the leisurely scientific approach has too often taken precedence in dealing with the UFO question." The report stated that "all of them have serious survival implications" and that the UFO problem should be treated as a real and immediate threat, requiring intensive emergency action to isolate the threat and develop adequate defense measures. The NSA suggested that "a little more of this survival attitude is called for in dealing with the UFO problem."

In March 1967, an intercept technician with the USAP Security Service allegedly reported that a Cuban MIG-21 pilot attempting to fire at a UFO was destroyed by the UFO. All reports, tapes, and notes were reportedly forwarded to the NSA.

Perhaps more disturbing is that after thirty-two years, a significant percentage of UFOs remain unidentified. The government's concern has focused on the psychological danger, while unwilling to consider the prospect of actual physical threat. The article argues that unconventional aerial objects with unlimited access to nuclear installations, capable of rendering instrumentation and communication systems inoperable, and manipulating sophisticated hydraulic equipment, warrant further scientific study.

The article criticizes the government's stance that further scientific investigation of UFOs is unwarranted, as stated by the Air Force in 1980. It points out that while the government has studied UFO reports, no body has focused on official reports indicating UFOs pose a threat to national security. The defunct USAF twenty-year "Project Blue Book" study never had a chance to receive the "outstanding report" from Iran. Air Force documents indicate that reports of UFOs affecting national security are handled under different protocols (JANAP 146 or Air Force Manual 55-11) and are not part of the Blue Book system.

The CIA had criticized the Air Force's case-by-case investigations and explanations as insufficient to determine the exact nature of the phenomenon as early as 1952. Similarly, the Air Force-sponsored Condon Committee study by the University of Colorado in 1968 is described as not having earnestly intended to investigate the physical reality of the phenomenon, with an early memorandum suggesting the project's goal was to appear objective by focusing on the people observing rather than the phenomenon itself.

Conclusion

In June 1978, a French government UFO study group (GEPAN) concluded that "everything taken into consideration, a material phenomenon seems to be behind the totality of the phenomenon—a flying machine whose modes of sustenance and propulsion are beyond our knowledge." The article argues that if the UFO phenomenon is technologically beyond our understanding, it is all the more reason to learn more about it, as other countries are likely to do so.

Beyond national security, the NSA report from 1968 suggested that the UFO question might lead humanity to construct a society conducive to developing a completely human being, healthy in mind and body, and able to recognize and adapt to real environmental situations. Isolating ourselves from the UFO phenomenon risks missing a significant adventure.

The article concludes by noting that the government's conduct with regard to UFOs has been characterized as nonfeasance and obfuscation. CAUS (Citizens Against UPO Secrecy) is presented as a group formed to foster a review of UFO reality and significance, calling for the government to acknowledge public misinformation, reverse its position on further study, and declassify all UFO documentation. CAUS believes the public has a right to an objective reappraisal of the implications of the UFO phenomenon.

Case Study: Moulins-le-Carbonnel, France (Cas Rouzier-Lenoir)

This section details an investigation into a UFO sighting that occurred on March 1, 1980, at 23:45 in Moulins-le-Carbonnel, France. The investigation was conducted by G.R.C. 52.

Summary of Observation:

Monsieur Rouzier and his brother-in-law, Monsieur Lenoir, witnessed a blue light descending rapidly, appearing as an oval blue shape. It seemed to land near the ground, causing the house and surrounding oak trees to be "embrased" as if welded by an arc. Monsieur Lenoir, alerted by Rouzier, initially thought it was an electrical issue. As Lenoir exited the car, the "embrasement" recommenced. Rouzier turned and saw a second object descending vertically at the same speed. The house's electrical lights in the kitchen and courtyard went out momentarily when the object reached the trees, and then came back on when Madame Rouzier approached the door.

Transcription of Interview with Monsieur Rouzier:

Monsieur Rouzier initially thought the blue light was a helicopter but quickly realized it was a "blue fireball" descending rapidly, round and oval in shape. It descended to about two meters from the ground, appearing to land. The house facade then seemed to catch fire. He described the surrounding trees also being "embrased" and illuminated as if by arc welding, even though it was night and there was no moon. He initially thought it was an electrical problem within the house. The phenomenon emitted intense, non-dazzling luminosity. The event occurred around 00:05.

He described the first object as a blue ball descending at phenomenal speed with no noise. A second object followed about a second later. The objects appeared to be made of glass-like material, intensely blue, and phosphorescent. He estimated the first object to be about ten meters long and 1.60 meters high. The second object followed at the same speed and disappeared behind a hill.

There was a brief power outage, lasting about one second, affecting the courtyard lamp and kitchen light. The children in the house were asleep and did not wake up.

Interview with Monsieur Lenoir:

Monsieur Lenoir confirmed seeing the blue light descend. He stated that when the first illumination occurred, he thought it was a car light and cut his engine. When he got out of the car, it returned to normal. The second object arrived and the phenomenon recommenced. He saw the second object descend and noted that after its disappearance, light still illuminated the walls.

He described the light as being between two trees, closer to a large oak. He stated it descended vertically, then obliqued to the left, and disappeared behind the trees. He described it as falling, then moving horizontally, and then disappearing behind the trees. He believed the object was horizontal and not inclined. He suggested that one part of the object might have sunk faster than the other, causing it to slow down about ten meters from the ground.

He described the illumination as blue, like twenty welding posts, and the color of the object. The second house's gable was also illuminated with the same blue color. After the objects disappeared, the light on the house gable remained, suggesting the object was slightly behind it. He confirmed seeing only the second object after stepping out of the car.

General Questions to Witnesses:

All witnesses (Témoins) stated they had no trouble sleeping, did not feel strange sensations or heat, and were not afraid, only surprised. Madame Rouzier and Madame Lenoir admitted to being scared during the "embrasement" of the house. Monsieur Lenoir was very surprised, as he did not expect it. Monsieur Rouzier stated he was not scared because he was observing the objects and not the house.

Madame Lenoir saw the light descend above the large oak tree and described it as if it were maneuvering to land. She saw the trees illuminated, which led her to believe it was landing. She confirmed the light continued to descend until it was visible, then seemed to glide and turn to land. She saw the phenomenon above the large oak tree.

She described the disappearance as if it were coming down, and then arriving at the ground level, behind the trees. She confirmed the object was not inclined and was horizontal. She speculated that a part of it might have sunk faster, causing it to slow down.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout the issue is the perceived government cover-up and misinformation regarding UFOs. The magazine strongly advocates for further scientific investigation, highlighting the potential national security implications and the advanced technological capabilities demonstrated by UFOs. The editorial stance is critical of the government's reluctance to acknowledge the phenomenon's significance and its tendency to debunk reports. The article implies that ignoring UFOs could be a matter of survival and a missed opportunity for human advancement. The inclusion of the French case study suggests an international perspective on the phenomenon and reinforces the idea that UFOs are a material phenomenon, likely advanced machines, that warrant serious study.

This document is a detailed investigative report from the magazine "Ufologie-Contact", Special Issue N° 3, dated March 1, 1980. It focuses on a specific UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon) observation that occurred on that date.

The Observation

The report begins by recalling the key factors of the observation, which took place on March 1, 1980, from 22h45 to 22h47 TU. The observed object was described as oval in shape and had an intense, electric light blue color, compared to an arc weld and referencing Pantone 305 V. Its trajectory was descending and perpendicular to the horizon, with a slight inclination to the left observed during the final moments of the second phenomenon. There were no distinct phases noted. The duration of each of the two phenomena observed was precisely timed at 4 seconds. The altitude was estimated by witnesses to be less than 100 meters when passing between two trees. The distance from the witnesses was reported to be between 500 meters and 1.5 km. The estimated dimensions were a length of approximately 10 to 15 meters, with a height roughly half of the estimated length.

Location of Observation

The observation site is identified as "L'Oulins-le-Corbonnel", located northwest of "Lans". This area is described as having a surface area of 1631 hectares, an altitude ranging from 170 to 220 meters, and a population of 5494 inhabitants within the regional natural park of "Normandie Maine".

Meteorological Conditions

According to the meteorological center of Alençon, the closest station to the observation point, the night of March 1st to March 2nd, 1980, was overcast. The temperature ranged from 5.5° to 6°, with a North-Northeast wind. The cloud cover (nebulosity) was rated 7/8 to 8/8. Barometric pressure was recorded at 1008.7 millibars at 6 PM and 1004.0 millibars at 6 AM. The sky remained overcast throughout the night, characterized by a mass of stratocumulus clouds at an altitude of 400 meters at the beginning of the night, rising to 600 meters by the end of the night.

Astronomical Conditions

Based on the meteorological conditions and the reported observation time, the report attempts to determine the celestial coordinates of the phenomenon. This involves calculating the azimuth and apparent height, taking into account refraction. The report details complex calculations involving magnetic azimuth, geographic azimuth, apparent height, and refractive index to derive the phenomenon's Right Ascension (Ascension Droite) and Declination (Déclinaison). The calculated equatorial coordinates for the phenomenon are α = 7h 31 min 3s and δ = 30°37'40.3". The report notes that these coordinates are close to those of Sirius and Procyon, two bright stars, and also references a "Point A" on a celestial map.

Measurements and Witness Testimonies

Page 21 presents a table comparing measurements made by three witnesses: M. Lenoir, M. Rouzier, and Mme Lenoir. These measurements relate to the estimated size of the phenomenon at different distances (500m, 1000m, 1500m). The data shows significant variations in length and width estimates, but the report notes that the discrepancies are proportional, with the length generally being double the height. The report also mentions that no photographs were taken by the witnesses, and the investigation included sketches (not provided in this scan) and clichés from the inquiry.

Detailed profiles are provided for each witness:

• 1st Witness (M. Rouzier): Born October 17, 1942, in Moulins-le-Carbonnel. Address: Le Bougonnière, Moulins-le-Carbonnel. Profession: Assistant conductor. Married with two children. Possesses knowledge related to his profession. Hobbies include mushroom cultivation and pigeon fancying. His physical and psychological health is reported as normal, with normal color perception.
• 2nd Witness (Konique Rouzier): Born December 2, 1941, in Maisons Laffitte. Address: Le Bougonnière, Moulins-le-Carbonnel. Profession: Homemaker. Married with two children. No specific diplomas. No particular hobbies. Her physical and psychological health is reported as normal, with normal color perception. Her visual acuity was tested at 5 meters.
• 3rd Witness (Jean-Louis Lenoir): Born May 16, 1946, in Juillé (Sarthe). Address: Saint Aubin de Locquenay. Profession: Mechanic at Usine Futis France. Married with three children. Holds a certificate of final apprenticeship as an agricultural mechanic. Hobbies include collecting model trains. His physical and psychological health is reported as normal, with normal color perception. He has a history of vertebral problems but no other reported illnesses, surgeries, or medical treatments.
• 4th Witness (Madeleine Lenoir): Born January 14, 1950, in Neuvillallcis. Address: Saint Aubin du Locquenay. Profession: Homemaker, seeking authorization to be a nanny. Married with three children. No diplomas. No particular hobbies. Her physical and psychological health is reported as normal, with normal color perception. She has no reported illnesses, surgeries, or medical treatments.

Remarks and Analysis

The report notes that the testimonies of the different witnesses are identical and coincide perfectly, particularly regarding the position and shape of the phenomenon. There are divergences in the size estimates (height and length), but these are proportional. Madame Lenoir is specifically mentioned as being the first to report the deviation in the trajectory of the second phenomenon.

A significant point is the reported power outage that occurred simultaneously with the observation. This was confirmed by EDF, who were contacted, but an engineer could not provide an explanation for the phenomenon. The report includes a reference to an attached document for further details on this.

The authors believe that the phenomena observed were genuinely visible that evening and not a result of invention or psychosis. They state that their investigation system aims to maximize information gathering regardless of the conclusion.

Possible Explanations and Conclusion

Two possibilities are presented: either the analysis leads to an identification of the phenomenon, or it does not. The investigators state that they do not feel they have sufficient "authority" to definitively declare the phenomenon as unidentified and therefore choose to abstain from making a conclusion.

The report is dated May 30, 1981, and was made in Le Mans.

Correspondence and Editorial Stance

Pages 27 and 28 contain a response from the author (presumably the investigator) to Monsieur Brouwez, addressing points raised in a previous open letter. The author clarifies their position, stating they never claimed to defend the viewpoints of Monnerie, Bartel, and Brucker, which they found indefensible. They express that ufology is not easy and requires resilience. The author also addresses Brouwez's use of the term "neo-ufology" and his suggestion that certain phenomena relate to secret military weapons, which the author dismisses as "paranoiac" unless evidence is provided. The author references a symposium in Boston in 1969 and the work of David Swift regarding "social time-bombs" and the potential influence of such themes on the "United Control" concept. The author also points out that Brouwez misquoted or took information out of context regarding German secret weapons.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine "Ufologie-Contact" appears to be dedicated to investigating and reporting on UAP sightings and related phenomena. The editorial stance, as demonstrated by this report and the response to Brouwez, is one of careful investigation, detailed data collection, and a cautious approach to conclusions. While acknowledging the complexities and potential psychological aspects of ufology, the publication seems to prioritize factual reporting and witness testimony. The response to Brouwez indicates a critical and analytical approach to claims, particularly those bordering on conspiracy theories or unsubstantiated assertions. The magazine appears to value rigorous analysis and avoids sensationalism, as evidenced by their decision to abstain from a definitive conclusion when evidence is insufficient.

This document, issue number 29 of S.P.E.P.S.E. (Société Parisienne d'Etude des Phénoménes Spatiaux et Etranges), delves into the controversial intersection of secret German weapons, alleged UFO sightings during the Third Reich, and the post-war transfer of technology.

Analysis of Secret Weapons and UFO Claims

The text begins by addressing a claim that Monsieur Brouwez was mistaken by 10 years regarding certain information. The author then outlines two main points from a book concerning secret German weapons and UFOs.

Firstly, it references stories, previously reported by GARREAU and DURRANT, about German secret weapons, particularly the V7 and UFOs sighted over Germany during the peak of the Third Reich. The author states that these stories were faithfully transcribed from GARREAU and DURRANT's accounts.

Secondly, the author details their personal investigation into these claims, which involved interviewing historians, former employees of Peenemünde, and Hermam OBERTF himself.

The author clarifies the context in which these stories were presented, noting that on page 221 of the referenced work, they declared a preliminary recall of 'facts' as they are generally presented, using quotation marks around 'facts' to indicate skepticism. The subsequent text, including phrases like 'it is said,' 'this is the kind of story circulating in ufological literature,' and 'here too, everything is uncertainty,' further suggests that the author's conclusions would not support the sensational claims.

Crucially, the text highlights that all allegations concerning the V7 are based on the statements of engineer MIETHE. The author's own conclusions, presented on pages 228 and 229, are based on information from Hermam OBERTH and Dr. Heinz GROSSER. The author also mentions Hermam OBERTH's opinion on the origin of UFOs, an opinion the author does not share.

A footnote (**) clarifies that the existence of these secret German weapons supports a thesis of a military origin for UFOs, presented as an experimental weapon kept secret.

Debunking the V7 and Other Claims

On page 30, the author directly addresses the claims, stating that while stories recounted by MIETHE might not be entirely false, the UFO connection is unfounded. The author asserts that stories of UFOs observed by Reich experts are fabricated and that the V7 never flew, nor was it circular, but rather rocket-shaped.

The author expresses ignorance about where GARREAU obtained his stories. However, DURRANT is cited as having invented the SONDER BÜRO, code 'URANUS,' of the Luftwaffe, which was an experiment that proved 'devilishly conclusive' in demonstrating how many authors would accept such information uncritically. The author notes DURRANT's honesty in admitting this.

The text also points out that NOSTRA has selectively used information from the author's book to avoid their thesis and focus only on the fantastical, labeling it a typical example of information manipulation.

Furthermore, the issue mentions that these stories of German secret weapons and UFOs have been promoted by fascists in Toronto as part of a recent neo-Nazi propaganda campaign, with at least two or three books dedicated to the subject.

The author reiterates that it is GARREAU, not themselves, who claims MIETHE is in Egypt. MIETHE, along with other prominent figures like Von BRAUM, OBERTH, LIPPISH, DORNBERGER, HUZEL, TESSMAN, LIUDENBERG, AXSTER, and RIEDEL, were reportedly 'recruped' by the Americans. The Russians are said to have recruited approximately 5,000 individuals, including engineers and technicians, who worked in both the USSR and the United States on the development of rockets, not circular aerodynes.

The author dismisses the AVRO V7, referencing an insert in an open letter, as a complete failure. They state that the Coanda effect, while interesting, requires significant power, resulting in the AVRO V7 achieving only about 60 km/h at 10 centimeters above the ground. Presenting the AVRO V7 as evidence for MIETHE's claims is deemed 'not trivial.'

A footnote (***) directs readers to the work of Jean GIRAUD for further information, suggesting that the Russians may have recovered thousands of V1 and V2 rockets, which, after experimentation, might have been the origin of the 1946 wave in Scandinavia. Jean GIRAUD's address is provided.

Further Rebuttals and Perspectives

On page 31, Thierry PINVIDIC directly challenges the claims, stating that if someone has been saying something for ten years, they have been spreading nonsense. PINVIDIC concedes that secret German weapons did exist, but not the V7; rather, V1s and V2s. They also confirm the 'US-Soviet sharing' of material and technicians, but emphasize that linking this to ufology is a repeated error, leading to UFOs being presented as a jealously guarded military secret.

PINVIDIC acknowledges that the author is not entirely wrong and offers a quote from Jean ROSTAND: "Truth always holds in reserve something to give a little revenge to those who were on the wrong side."

PINVIDIC concludes by humorously suggesting that it's no wonder the carabinieri of Offenbach are slow to get up, as days like these, because of the recipient of the letter, they don't go to bed early.

S.P.E.P.S.E. Organization Details

The final pages detail the S.P.E.P.S.E. organization, a Parisian society for the study of spatial and strange phenomena. It is described as a non-profit, apolitical, and non-denominational amateur research body, legally declared in 1901. Its aspirations include developing intellectual faculties through the study and practice of experimental and applied sciences, particularly space-related ones, and investigating spatial and strange phenomena to prove their reality or non-existence.

The organization's social address is in Marly le Roi, France. Its bureau consists of Gilles RICHARD (President), Raymond BONNAVENTURE (Secretary), and Chantal BONNAVENTURE (Treasurer). Their activities include analyzing current scientific knowledge, developing research projects, holding reflection meetings, giving talks, debates, sky observation vigils, maintaining a documentary and library fund, and publishing a bulletin.

SPEPSE has two working groups: Section UFO, addressed to R. BONNAVENTURE, and Section ASTRO. The library service is managed by J.P. FRAMBOURG in L'HAY LES ROSES.

Requests for information are honored if accompanied by a stamped envelope for the reply.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around debunking sensationalist claims in ufology, particularly those linking secret Nazi technology to UFOs. The editorial stance appears to be critical of unsubstantiated theories, emphasizing factual investigation and distinguishing between actual technological advancements and speculative interpretations. The issue also promotes the activities of the SPEPSE organization as a serious platform for scientific inquiry into unexplained phenomena.