Ufologie Contact - Special - No 02 - Circulaires GEPAN, mai 1979

Magazine Overview

Title: UFOLOGIE CONTACT
Issue: N°2
Date: Mai 1979
Publisher: SPEPSE
Price: 5 F.

This special issue, titled "Circulaires GEPAN," is dedicated to the Groupement d'Etudes des Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non identifiés (GEPAN). The cover features a stylized graphic and the prominent title "UFOLOGIE CONTACT."

Subscription Information

The magazine offers two subscription formulas: "UFOLOGIE-CONTACT" with 4 issues per year for 15.00 F, and "UFOLOGIE-CONTACT SPECIAL" with 3 issues per year for 15.00 F. Subscriptions are paid by bank check to the order of SPEPSE and begin upon receipt of payment. The editorial and administrative details are provided, with Raymond BONNAVENTURE listed as the Director of Publication, located in MARLY-LM-ROI. The issue notes that specimen copies are available upon request and that letters to the editor should include a 1.40 F stamp for a response. They also invite ufological associations and review editors to exchange publications.

GEPAN: Creation and Structure

The issue details the creation of GEPAN by the Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES) in May 1977. GEPAN comprises about fifteen researchers and experts from various organizations who contribute part-time. The group is headed by M. Claude POHER, an engineer at CNES, and is based at the Centre Spatial de Toulouse. A Scientific Council, external to GEPAN, was established to provide advice and recommendations to CNES. This council, composed of seven scientific personalities, convened for the first time in mid-December 1977.

Scientific Council's Avis and Recommendations (December 1977)

The Scientific Council's first report, dated December 1977, addresses public interest in environmental phenomena and the need for scientific study. It justifies the formation of GEPAN within CNES, highlighting the guarantees offered by the institution in terms of physical sciences and technical resources. The council appreciated the multidisciplinary approach, including human sciences, and noted that such studies could be of interest to those fields as well. The council acknowledged GEPAN's objective approach and significant effort in statistical studies. However, based on the dossiers presented, the council found it impossible to definitively exclude or confirm the anomalous nature of the reported facts, nor could they pronounce on their scientific interest.

Key recommendations from this initial report include:

• Improving data collection: Shortening the time between observation and reporting to GEPAN, potentially by advising the Gendarmerie more directly.
• Statistical procedures: While generally correct, these could be further improved, with detailed suggestions to follow.
• Multidisciplinary intervention team: Suggesting the study of forming such a team with clearly defined missions.
• Limitations of statistical methods: Acknowledging that conclusions cannot be drawn solely from statistical methods, though they remain an indispensable tool.
• Methodologies: Developing precise methodologies for case studies and investigations.

The Council recommended the continuation of GEPAN's activities within CNES, coordinating national data collection and analysis. They also stressed the need for sufficient resources and advised caution regarding the diffusion and publication of studies, stating they would be consulted before any publication.

Scientific Council's Avis and Recommendations (June 1978)

A second series of recommendations, dated June 1978, followed a review of studies conducted in the first semester of 1978. The Scientific Council expressed satisfaction with the quality of work and its alignment with previous recommendations. They noted that the fundamental question of whether the facts are anomalous and their scientific interest becomes more acute as data quality improves. The council urged GEPAN researchers to maintain the objectivity of their work, which serves as the best validation.

Further recommendations from the June 1978 meeting:

• GEPAN Structure: Maintaining the use of part-time personnel to diversify skills, but reinforcing the permanent staff with a scientist from CNRS.
• Information Collection: The procedures between the Gendarmerie Nationale and GEPAN are satisfactory. To enhance the understanding of meteorological conditions during observations, a short meteorological questionnaire should be distributed to brigades. GEPAN should provide feedback to the brigades to maintain their motivation and guide future data collection.
• Rapid Intervention Group: Progress in metrology for witness testimonies is noted. However, current equipment is insufficient. The council favors developing an optical simulator for reconstructions and improving photographic equipment. Interventions should be focused on recent, close-range observations and require rapid deployment, suggesting GEPAN should have suitable transport.
• Trace Analysis Group: This group should leverage the expertise of a chemist and investigate methods for measuring soil magnetic and electrical parameters and their potential perturbations. Rapid intervention at notable observation sites is crucial.
• Radar Alert Group: This group should inventory operational radar systems nationwide and explore possibilities for deferred exploitation of collected data. They are also tasked with improving documentation on false echoes and anomalous propagations.
• File Constitution and Statistical Analysis: The pursuit of an IT database is supported. However, re-investigating old cases is generally not recommended unless there are analogies with recent cases that warrant verification. Analogy criteria should be clearly defined and accessible for IT sorting.

The council also recommended continuing statistical work, including psycho-sociological data. They approved the methodology for assessing witness sincerity and credibility, suggesting this research could extend beyond GEPAN's strict scope. The council recognized the value of GEPAN's identification table, suggesting minor revisions, additions of meteorological phenomena, and removal of non-homogeneous entries.

Orientations

• Rare Phenomena: GEPAN is asked to compile a census of rare phenomena observed by French and foreign scientific laboratories. A commented film could be produced for identification and to sensitize investigators.
• Hypothesis Research: The council believes it is premature to formulate a preferential hypothesis. Instead, GEPAN should exhaustively list all current theories on physics and universe models. This research must be conducted with objectivity, and a report will be presented to the council.

Information Dissemination

The Scientific Council deems it necessary to inform the public about GEPAN's work. They requested GEPAN submit a brochure by October 1978, detailing its methodology, statistical results, and indications for improving observation quality. The previously mentioned film on rare phenomena could serve as a basis for a public documentary to encourage witness reporting and provide descriptive illustrations.

Finally, GEPAN may be authorized to share its methodology with officially recognized private groups and receive their input for study.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the scientific study of unidentified aerospace phenomena, specifically through the lens of GEPAN and its supporting bodies like CNES and the Scientific Council. The editorial stance is one of promoting rigorous, objective, and multidisciplinary scientific inquiry. There is a clear emphasis on methodology, data collection, statistical analysis, and cautious interpretation of findings. The magazine advocates for transparency and systematic research, aiming to move beyond anecdotal evidence towards a more structured understanding of these phenomena. The publication itself, "UFOLOGIE CONTACT," serves as a platform for disseminating information and fostering discussion within the ufological community and with the broader scientific establishment.

This document comprises a series of official communications from the Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES) in Toulouse, France, primarily concerning the activities and initiatives of the Groupe d'Etudes des Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-identifiés (GEPAN). The documents span from August 1978 to April 1979 and are addressed to private UFO research groups.

GEPAN's Initiative for Collaboration with Private Groups

A significant portion of the document details GEPAN's desire to establish more formal and productive relationships with private UFO research organizations. A letter dated August 19, 1978, from Claude POHER, then Head of GEPAN, to a "Monsieur le Président" (presumably of a private group), explicitly states the need for GEPAN and private groups to "stop pretending to ignore each other." POHER emphasizes that GEPAN, as a public service funded by the state, has different objectives and methods than private groups, but shares a common interest in the UFO phenomenon. GEPAN does not intend to federate, delegate responsibilities, substitute itself for, or impose anything on private groups. Instead, it aims to offer its expertise and acquired results to improve information collection from observers without obligation.

This initiative is structured into three stages:

1. First Stage: A meeting at the CNES Spatial Center in Toulouse on Tuesday, September 12, 1978, from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM. This meeting would involve key GEPAN members and one to three representatives from each private group, who would be authorized to make decisions. The agenda included an exposé of CNES's intentions, GEPAN's results and working methods, concrete proposals from CNES, open discussion, and common conclusions.
2. Second Stage: One or two training sessions for investigators from private groups on GEPAN's methods and techniques. The cost of training would be borne by the groups, with CNES not providing large-scale training.
3. Third Stage: Progressive establishment of informal but more normal routine relations.

CNES would cover lunch on September 12, 1978, but participants would need to finance their own travel. The letter also requested that groups return a questionnaire rapidly, respond to the letter with comments or proposals, designate and accredit their representatives for the meeting (limited to three per group due to space constraints), and provide the names of these individuals for entry filtering. A postscript asks if any associations were missed as recipients.

Optical Network System for UAP Observation

Another key initiative detailed is the introduction of a new optical network system for UAP study. A note dated August 9, 1979, from Alain ESTERLE, Head of GEPAN, to private groups, discusses a new phase in UAP study that requires broader participation. This phase involves generalizing the systematic use of simple and inexpensive optical networks that are sufficient for analyzing photographed light sources.

The system described is a spectrograph that can be attached to a standard camera lens. It uses a diffraction grating to capture the emission spectrum of a light source. The device is a transparent plastic disk, 20x20 mm, engraved with 300 lines per mm, which transmits 80% of the light without altering a normal photograph. The technical problems related to mass production have been resolved by an industrial partner, JOBIN-YVON.

The cost of these networks is estimated at 70 French Francs (F) per unit, with the final price depending on the production volume. GEPAN will cover the majority of the investment costs. The letter urges a rapid response from groups regarding their willingness to purchase and use these networks to help determine the market potential and enable GEPAN to commit to expenses.

An annex provides technical details on the spectrograph's principle and utilization. It notes that while a UFO cliché is rare, it can provide information on the physical nature of the phenomenon if captured with a spectrograph. The device is compatible with any commercial camera, with a 24x36 reflex camera and a 50mm focal length lens being recommended. Photography is generally advised at night with an aperture between f/1.2 and f/1.8, and exposure times ranging from 1/60 to 1 second, depending on film sensitivity. It is suggested to conduct trials with various light sources to be prepared.

The analysis of the spectral data obtained cannot be performed by amateurs; it requires a physicist experienced in spectrography. GEPAN offers to have this spectral analysis executed by a specialized laboratory after verifying the cliché and calibrating the spectrograph. The results will be communicated to the interested party, with GEPAN reserving the right to use these results.

Methodology and Scientific Rigor

A subsequent note from Alain ESTERLE, dated April 9, 1979, reiterates GEPAN's focus on methodology and scientific rigor. He states that GEPAN does not propose a global interpretive hypothesis for the phenomenon, as many questions remain unclear regarding available data. This approach is deliberate, preserving all possibilities. GEPAN wants to avoid committing to a path lacking tests and factual verification. The note emphasizes the importance of scientific methodology and maintaining humility in the face of a complex problem.

GEPAN invites those interested to write to explain the logical basis of their methods, the justification for their hypotheses, and how they intend to confront them with facts. If a group has already published their findings, they are asked to provide the reference.

Future Research and Group Heterogeneity

Esterle also expresses GEPAN's interest in understanding the priorities of different groups (e.g., investigations, monitoring, theoretical reflection, psychological or physical experimentation). This knowledge of group heterogeneity is considered indispensable for defining future collaborations. GEPAN is entering a new phase where studies will be proposed to various French scientific research centers. The process will involve compiling comprehensive dossiers, including syntheses of previous studies on the same subject, and GEPAN wishes to incorporate studies conducted by private groups if they express interest.

Addressing Delays

Finally, the documents acknowledge complaints about GEPAN's correspondence delays and similar delays in responses from some groups regarding the optical network initiative. Esterle attributes these to organizational obstacles rather than bad faith, emphasizing that progress will be slow but in the right direction.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes are the officialization and scientific approach to UAP study by a government agency (CNES/GEPAN), the importance of collaboration between official bodies and private researchers, the development of standardized methodologies and data collection tools (like the spectrograph), and a commitment to scientific rigor and open-mindedness in exploring the phenomenon. The editorial stance is one of cautious, systematic investigation, seeking to integrate diverse efforts and knowledge while maintaining scientific integrity.

This document is an internal report or publication from the Centre Spatial de Toulouse, part of the Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES), dated April 18, 1979. Titled 'VERS UNE APPROCHE SCIENTIFIQUE' (Towards a Scientific Approach), it outlines the establishment and methodology of the Groupe d'Etudes des Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-identifiés (GEPAN).

GEPAN: Why? How?

The report details the creation of GEPAN on May 1, 1977. This initiative was prompted by a confluence of factors: significant interest from government members (mentioning R. Galley, Minister of Defense, in 1974), growing public curiosity, and the existing interest within CNES, the forefront of French space research. Claude Pohér was the first head of GEPAN until October 1978.

The document questions the reasons behind this interest, referencing the Condon Commission's 1969 conclusion about the lack of interest in further research. However, it notes that observations have continued globally, with witnesses from all demographics, including astronomers and scientists. This persistence suggests a constant phenomenon of our time, escaping cultural and temporal contingencies, indicating the problem is not definitively resolved.

Historically, the report traces the recognition of unexplained phenomena back to ancient texts, carvings, and myths, cautioning against misinterpreting cultural symbolism. More recently, post-World War II, unexplained phenomena gained prominence, particularly after Kenneth Arnold's 1947 sighting and his use of the term 'flying saucer,' which popularized the concept.

GEPAN's structure involves two full-time staff (a director and secretary), dozens of CNES agents contributing a fraction of their time, and several dispersed French researchers. A Scientific Council, composed of high-level scientists, provides supervision and advice, ensuring a multidisciplinary approach across physical and human sciences.

GEPAN's information sources are crucial. The Gendarmerie Nationale has been conducting investigations into unexplained sightings since 1975, providing GEPAN with approximately 600 normalized reports, with about 300 new cases annually. The Aviation Civile, Army Air Force, and Navy also channel relevant observations to GEPAN.

What Problem? What Data?

Private 'ufological' groups also conduct investigations, sharing their archives with GEPAN, though the quality varies. Witnesses also contact GEPAN directly. The report emphasizes that France has a well-established information network.

GEPAN's initial tasks in 1977-1978 focused on improving investigation methods and statistical analysis of testimony, building on preliminary work by C. Pohér. Two fundamental aspects of the problem were identified: the immediate non-reducibility of 'unidentified' phenomena to classical physical or psychological schemes, and a strong presumption of a physical component.

Evidence for the physical component includes statistical studies by Claude Pohér showing that the description laws of unidentified phenomena coincide with classical perception rules of sensitive physical phenomena. While not definitive proof, it supports the physical hypothesis. Investigations in 1977-1978 with generally independent witnesses showed high sincerity and credibility.

The psychological component is evident in witness testimonies, shaped by perception and memory mechanisms, and in the reactions of witnesses and the public, often influenced by expectation, fear, and hope. The problem thus has both physical and psychological dimensions, requiring careful study of their interplay.

Methods of Investigation with Witnesses

GEPAN's investigations aim to gather information about observed phenomena. Accessing physical aspects relies on witness descriptions, making it difficult to separate narrative subjectivity from objective stimulus. GEPAN developed methods to address this, including:

• Individual interviews with each witness on-site.
• Detailed reconstructions of the event using tools like theodolites, compasses, chronometers, and color/odor samples.
• Preferably, using a sighting apparatus (SIMOVNI) that simulates luminous forms, colors, intensities, sizes, and movements against a landscape background, minimizing linguistic ambiguity.
• Multiple repetitions of reconstructions.

Psychological aspects are also explored through interviews covering witness reactions, initial interpretations, who they spoke to, their scientific knowledge, and religious beliefs. These psychological data help understand potential inconsistencies in reconstructions or between different witnesses, considering extrinsic factors like weather and celestial positions.

However, the report cautions that conclusions, especially from single witnesses, must be treated prudently, and physical data obtained should not be considered objective without further validation.

The Psychological Component in a Broad Sense

The psychologist's role extends beyond witness interviews, addressing questions about rumor mechanisms, perception and memory distortion, the possibility of characterizing witnesses or UAP observation as a symptom, and how psychological studies can enrich knowledge and aid physicists.

Obtaining Objective Physical Data

Given the undeniable psychological component and its intertwining with physical data from testimonies, the possibility of obtaining objective physical data intrinsic to the phenomena is explored. GEPAN has developed a third approach alongside two others:

• Radar Data: Certain observations are accompanied by radar detection. GEPAN accesses data from the diverse French radar network (Air Force, Civil Aviation, Meteorology) to analyze qualitative (solid, gas, plasma, false echoes) and quantitative (equivalent surface) information from radar echoes.
• Environmental Trace Studies: Observations sometimes report 'landings' with environmental traces. GEPAN uses measurement equipment to analyze mechanical, thermal, and electromagnetic effects, with precision currently evaluated through studies of artificially created traces.
• Optical Diffraction Networks: The idea of using these networks to obtain spectra of unidentified luminous phenomena is ancient but was hindered by a lack of prior knowledge of the location and date of occurrence. A French manufacturer has now produced affordable networks for precise spectral analysis, adaptable to any photographic apparatus, which will be distributed globally.

What Treatments? What Studies?

GEPAN cannot systematically investigate every observation; only about ten investigations were conducted in 1978. Spectroscopic and trace analysis systems are being calibrated pending future data. Work primarily relies on external investigation reports.

The first task is interpretation and classification of documents into four categories:

A - Identified phenomenon
B - Probably identified phenomenon
C - Unidentified phenomenon, but document lacks interest (detail, cohesion, etc.)
D - Unidentified phenomenon, document is coherent, complete, and detailed.

This classification requires knowledge of natural and artificial physical phenomena. Approximately one-quarter of analyzed documents are currently classified as Type D.

Computerized Treatments

After classification, documents are coded for computer analysis. The coding is based on the principle that the only objective fact is that witnesses testified; the information quantum is the testimony itself, not the observed phenomenon. Physicists are primarily interested in Type D cases, while psychologists examine both identified and unidentified phenomena reported by witnesses. All testimony documents must be coded.

Computer coding serves both document management and statistical analysis functions. Defining coding rules is a delicate problem GEPAN is actively working to resolve. Statistical studies are divided into three areas: spatio-temporal studies, witness studies (types and behavior), and description studies (types and behavior).

Psychologists are primarily involved in witness studies, while physicists focus on description studies. These approaches are interconnected and must be examined together.

Studies and Reflection in the Field of Physics

While witness testimony is not considered objective data for physicists, they can still contribute by reflecting on two complementary axes: the real (concrete, practical, sensible world) and the rational (abstract, theoretical world). Theoretical reflection involves advanced physics theories to understand current limits and potential future challenges, opening paths for new interpretations of unidentified phenomena.

Physicists can also develop studies based on observations by making a key hypothesis: 'assume the witness's psychological screen is non-deforming and the subjectivity of descriptions does not alter the objectivity of perceived phenomena.' This opens fertile ground for reflection, as observation conditions are often mundane, implying classical physical laws should apply. The core question then becomes: are the described phenomena in contradiction with known physical laws?

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This document strongly advocates for a scientific, rigorous, and multidisciplinary approach to the study of unexplained aerial phenomena. It emphasizes the importance of collecting objective data, analyzing witness testimony critically, and integrating insights from both physics and psychology. The editorial stance is one of open inquiry, acknowledging the complexity and persistence of the phenomenon while systematically working towards understanding it through established scientific methodologies.

This issue of LE GEPAN et l'étude du phénomène OVNI, dated February 1979, focuses on the French government's initiative to scientifically study unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), known as OVNI (Objets Volants Non Identifiés) in French. The magazine details the establishment, structure, methodology, and early activities of GEPAN (Groupe d'études des phénomènes aérospatiaux non-identifiés), a new service created by the Centre national d'études spatiales (CNES) in March 1977.

The GEPAN Initiative

The creation of GEPAN reflects a desire from public authorities to scientifically examine unusual celestial phenomena. The magazine emphasizes that GEPAN does not operate under military contract but within a public civil framework, distinguishing it from earlier foreign official groups. Its creation was based on a preliminary analysis of the subject, not public pressure. GEPAN's priority is to study phenomena that its experts cannot identify, and it is composed of researchers who have expressed a desire to participate.

GEPAN's Approach and Methodology

The publication outlines GEPAN's approach, which involves studying phenomena both punctually and globally. It identifies recurring themes such as truncated or angled luminous beams, silent movements without aerodynamic effects, and interactions with the environment (e.g., engine failures, witness malaise). GEPAN aims to address these points by examining their compatibility with theory, technological feasibility, and experimental aspects, though the latter two are currently beyond technological means. A key question GEPAN seeks to answer is whether these phenomena are truly as 'aberrant' as they are described.

The approach acknowledges the presence of both physical and psychological components in UAP reports, considering this the only honest path forward. The current phase of study and research is dedicated to 'situating' the problem within the framework of physical and human sciences through systematic data collection, specific studies, and global reflection.

The Role of CNES

The Centre national d'études spatiales (CNES) is presented as the public body responsible for GEPAN. Established in December 1961 and operational since March 1962, CNES's mission is to guide and develop research for space programs. It is a public, scientific, and technical establishment funded primarily by the state, with a significant budget. CNES promotes the national use of space capabilities and participates in European space agency activities. It has various centers across France and has been involved in numerous balloon launches, sounding rocket launches, and satellite projects.

GEPAN's Structure and Resources

GEPAN is staffed by two full-time employees and supported by about twenty engineers and twenty technicians and employees from the Toulouse Space Center. Additionally, about forty people from various public and private organizations are associated with GEPAN's work. The magazine notes that GEPAN's current resources are limited, corresponding to the current level of understanding of the problem, and that requesting considerable means would be premature without a clearly defined, coherent approach.

Collaboration with Private Groups

GEPAN held a meeting in September 1978 with representatives from major French UAP study groups to define a useful type of cooperation. GEPAN stated it had no intention of federating these groups or delegating tasks. The meeting aimed to improve information collection quality and establish contact with GEPAN's specialized teams when an investigation required specific techniques or equipment. Private groups expressed willingness to share their findings and requested regular updates from GEPAN.

Data Collection and Files

GEPAN's initial 'raw material' consisted of approximately fifteen thousand observation reports, with one-third originating from France. These reports are categorized into several files:

• Official File: About a thousand reports from the Ministry of Defense (Gendarmerie and Armies), focusing on recent observations. This file is raw, contains many identified flying objects (OVI), is indexed, classified, and comprehensive, with new reports arriving regularly.
• Private Files: Transmitted by individuals who collected reports, press clippings, and letters over time, as well as summarized reports from amateur groups. This part of the file contains approximately ten thousand reports, often pre-selected, implying some initial filtering of OVIs.
• Specialized Literature File: GEPAN possesses a collection of books published on UFOs, some containing detailed observation reports, including unpublished ones. This file is estimated to contain two to three thousand observation reports.
• Computer File: A file created by C. Poher in 1971 on punched cards, containing about eight hundred observations with sixty coded parameters, drawing from the other files.
• Ufocat France File: In 1972, D. Saunders transmitted the French portion of his Ufocat catalog to C. Poher. This magnetic tape contains about four thousand entries (approximately one thousand distinct observations) with coded parameters.

The magazine clarifies that GEPAN does not possess any 'secret' files. Reports are not published due to their volume.

Examination and Sorting of Observation Reports

In autumn 1977, GEPAN began ensuring the collaboration of experts from the Toulouse Space Center's technical divisions to objectively examine the reports. These experts initially focused on sorting official observation reports. Each report is analyzed by two experts who categorize it and add remarks to an expertise sheet. This classification helps distribute reports into four categories based on the experts' assessment.

Cooperation Agreements

From May to September 1977, GEPAN focused on defining cooperation modes with external public organizations. GEPAN now has active correspondents from various institutions, including CNRS, the National Meteorology service, the Air Force, the Navy, the Gendarmerie, INRA, and the Laboratory of Social Psychology at Paris V University, as well as the CERT/Onera and the University of Strasbourg. Numerous individuals also assist GEPAN as occasional consultants.

The Scientific Council

In summer 1977, CNES established a Scientific Council composed of eight members, seven of whom were external scientific personalities from various disciplines (astronomy, plasma physics, high-energy physics, atmospheric physics, meteorology, satellite geodesy, psychosociology). The council's role is to advise CNES on work orientation and provide opinions on results. It is scheduled to meet approximately every six months, with two meetings held by December 1977 and June 1978.

Conclusion: Towards a Global Approach

The issue concludes by reiterating that unidentified aerial phenomena undeniably pose a problem. The presence of both physical and psychological components is considered the only honest avenue of investigation. The current phase aims to 'situate' the problem relative to physical and human sciences through systematic data collection, specific studies, and global reflection. It is only after this phase that the problem, more precisely defined, can be tackled with means commensurate with the results obtained. The magazine acknowledges that GEPAN's current means are modest but appropriate for the current level of understanding, cautioning against both excessive demands for resources and neglect of the subject due to insufficient means.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes revolve around the scientific investigation of UAP, the establishment and functioning of a governmental agency (GEPAN) dedicated to this study, the challenges of data collection and analysis, and the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration. The editorial stance is one of methodical, scientific inquiry, emphasizing objectivity, systematic data handling, and a balanced approach that considers both physical and psychological aspects of the phenomenon. There is a clear commitment to advancing understanding through rigorous research, despite resource limitations.

This issue of the magazine focuses on the "Objectivity of UFO Observations" and details the work of GEPAN (Groupe d'Études des Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-identifiés), a French research group. The content explores GEPAN's methodologies for classifying and analyzing UFO reports, presenting statistical findings, and detailing specific case investigations.

GEPAN's Classification System

The magazine outlines GEPAN's classification system for UFO (OVNI) reports:

• Type A: Phenomena that are completely identified (e.g., CNES balloons, helicopters, satellites, meteors).
• Type B: Phenomena that cannot be identified with certainty but whose characteristics, as described by witnesses, allow for assimilation to a known phenomenon (e.g., a balloon, an airplane, a meteorite).
• Type C: Phenomena that cannot be identified, but whose imprecise or insufficiently detailed reports make further analysis impossible.
• Type D: Phenomena that experts cannot identify despite relatively precise and complete reports. These are considered the most significant.

When an expert identifies a Type D phenomenon, a second classification is applied, distinguishing between six possible categories:

A. Relatively Distant Observations

1. Nocturnal Lights: Well-defined nocturnal lights whose appearance or movements cannot be explained by known luminous sources, often appearing colored.
2. Daytime Discs: Objects observed during the day, generally egg or disk-shaped, often with a metallic sheen. They can appear high in the sky or close to the ground, capable of hovering like helicopters but without rotors or noise, and can move at extraordinary speeds.
3. Instrumental Observations: Observations made using instruments like radar, binoculars, telescopes, or cameras, whether accompanied by visual observations or not. These can provide objective confirmation, especially when they yield unidentified radar echoes.

B. Close-Range Observations

The distinction between distant and close-range observations is set at less than 200 meters, beyond which binocular vision cannot accurately judge distances.

4. Close-Range Observations Type 1 (O.R.1): Observations made within 200 meters, with no physical effect on the witness or environment.
5. Close-Range Observations Type 2 (O.R.2): Reports mentioning interactions between the UFO and the environment, such as disturbances to lighting or car radios, traces or burns on the ground, or physical effects on plants, animals, or humans.
6. Close-Range Observations Type 3 (O.R.3): Reports describing the presence of entities that appear to be UFO occupants. Direct contact or communication is rare, but some reports mention witnesses being temporarily 'held' or 'paralyzed' by the occupants. This classification was proposed by Dr. Hynck, an American astronomer.

How GEPAN Experts Work

GEPAN experts meticulously analyze observation reports, noting location coordinates, site configuration, time of event, and phenomenon characteristics. They may conduct further research, such as checking celestial positions, air traffic, balloon launches (CNES or national meteorological services), geographical location, season, and meteorological conditions. Many apparent UFOs are debunked as mundane phenomena like tractors at night, car headlights in fog, or helicopters whose noise is masked by wind.

Results of Preliminary Analyses

Analysis of current observations indicates that most correspond to natural phenomena (clouds, meteors, planets) or human technology (balloons, satellites, vehicles) that witnesses did not recognize. A significant proportion of reports cannot be analyzed due to insufficient information or the inability to interview witnesses in detail. However, approximately 20-25% of reports remain genuinely puzzling, constituting GEPAN's 'true UFO observation reports'.

As of early 1978, GEPAN had analyzed 354 Gendarmerie reports, with the following distribution:

• 4% in Category A
• 37% in Category B
• 34% in Category C
• 25% in Category D

Of the 89 cases classified as Category D:

• 42% were nocturnal lights
• 4% were daytime discs
• 1% were instrumental observations (one radar case)
• 21% were close-range observations Type 1
• 28% were close-range observations Type 2
• 4% were close-range observations Type 3

A credibility assessment of Type D witnesses yielded:

• High credibility: 23% of cases
• Medium credibility: 67% of cases
• Low credibility: 10% of cases

Thus, about a quarter of detailed, unexplained reports come from highly credible witnesses. Despite variations in details, many UFO reports share similar characteristics regarding object shape, maneuverability, appearance/disappearance, sounds, and colors, prompting deeper research.

Statistical Study on 825 Type D Reports

A statistical study conducted by M. C. Poher in 1971 and updated in 1976 analyzed 825 Type D reports. Key findings include:

• Observations from France and abroad show similar statistical results.
• 70% of observations have at least two witnesses; over 50% have at least three.
• The vast majority of observers (70%) are adults.
• Witnesses come from a wide range of professions, including highly skilled individuals.
• Most observations occur in clear weather.
• The duration is typically a few minutes; very short or long durations are rare.
• 30% of observations are made within 150 meters.
• 70% of observed objects are circular or disk-shaped.
• Color consistency: metallic objects (30% daytime, 3% nighttime), red-orange luminous objects (12% daytime, 46% nighttime).
• Objects are reported as luminous both day (86%) and night (98%).
• Regarding speed, 40% are reported as initially immobile then rapid, with 20% described as 'blindingly fast'.
• 50% of cases involve 'anomalous' trajectories with stops or abrupt turns; 20% report landings.
• 70% of observed objects are silent.
• Landings are exceptionally reported near inhabited areas (70% in isolated regions, 20% near isolated houses).
• Reports come from all countries, irrespective of culture, religion, or lifestyle.
• Geographic distribution in France is linked to population density and visibility conditions.
• Temporal distribution shows 'waves' without simple correlation. Peak observations are generally in October, minimum in February, with 70% occurring at night.
• No correlation was found between magnetic field perturbations and observations, contrary to the idea that objects affect compasses.

Verification Methods

GEPAN employed several methods to verify the objectivity of Type D reports:

• Comparative analysis: Comparing Type D reports with Type A reports (certainly identified phenomena).
• Statistical analysis: Verifying if Type D reports adhere to optical laws of visual observation based on atmospheric transparency or cloud cover.
• Coherence analysis: Examining the relationship between the number of details described and the distance from the observer.

These methods suggest that Type D reports stem from objective observations that experts cannot interpret, as it's unlikely observers could invent detailed accounts respecting physical laws.

First Investigations

In December 1977, GEPAN decided to conduct two specific, detailed investigations to present typical cases to the Scientific Council. Due to time constraints, they focused on easily accessible cases from already filtered dossiers.

Observation of Rives (Isère)

On November 5, 1976, three witnesses in Rives observed an intense light crossing the sky. Later, about 22 km away, an engineer observed a luminous disk making an unusual, silent trajectory for about twenty seconds. The GEPAN investigation team included members from CNES, a university psychologist, and a former magistrate.

Observation of Comberouger (Tarn et Garonne)

On March 7, 1974, two witnesses (aged 25 and 26) observed a voluminous, highly luminous object about 300 meters from the road. The object, initially appearing as a red sphere, disappeared into the sky. Another person made a related observation. The investigation team comprised members from CNES, CNRS (astronomer), and a university psychologist.

In both cases, the objective nature of the observations was confirmed, and attempts to assimilate them to known phenomena failed.

First Meeting of the Scientific Council

In December 1977, the GEPAN Scientific Council provided "Opinions and Recommendations." They acknowledged the public's interest and the need for scientific study, justifying the formation of a multidisciplinary study group within CNES. The Council noted that the unusual nature of the study required researchers to maintain strict objectivity, evidenced by their efforts in statistical studies. They found it impossible to definitively exclude or confirm the anomalous nature of the reported facts and could not yet pronounce on their scientific interest. Recommendations included improving data collection timeliness, refining statistical analysis procedures, and potentially forming a multidisciplinary intervention team.

Activities in 1978

By the end of summer 1978, GEPAN had conducted about fifteen in-depth investigations of particularly interesting cases. Recommendations from the Scientific Council led to increased resources for GEPAN in 1978. Support from the Centre Spatial de Toulouse grew, with 43 individuals contributing 5-10% of their professional time or volunteering. The first semester of 1978 focused on six themes: collecting fresh objective information, developing detailed case analysis methodologies, and conducting detailed analyses of about ten cases.

What to Do in Case of an Unusual Celestial Observation?

Individuals observing strange objects or phenomena should strive to:

• Attract the attention of other witnesses and note their names and addresses.
• Carefully record maximum details as soon as possible: precise time and duration, position relative to landscape landmarks, shape, apparent dimensions, presence/absence of noise or odor, distance to the phenomenon.
• For close-range observations, take photographs (noting camera settings).
• In case of landings, especially with environmental traces, do not collect samples yourself. Instead, precisely define the area, protect it from degradation, and immediately notify the local gendarmerie.

In all cases, witnesses should go to the nearest gendarmerie to file their testimony. Gendarmerie brigades are informed of the procedure and will promptly notify GEPAN for urgent cases, otherwise submitting a detailed report later.

Even unusual observations, if well-described, can interest GEPAN, which respects witness anonymity. If unable to reach the gendarmerie, observations can be reported by phone to the Centre Spatial de Toulouse.

How to Evaluate the Distance of an Object?

Approximate distance can be estimated using natural landmarks (e.g., object passing in front of a hill, behind a house, at the height of a telegraph pole). However, accurate distance evaluation is rare beyond 200 meters.

How to Evaluate the Apparent Dimensions of an Object?

Comparison with other landscape objects (house, car, moon, tree) is the simplest method. For more precision, simple techniques can be used, such as using the thumb to estimate angular size (approximately 2 degrees for an adult's thumb width). The article provides examples of angular sizes for various objects at different distances.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently emphasizes the importance of objective, scientific investigation into UFO phenomena. It highlights the rigorous methodologies employed by GEPAN, including detailed classification systems, statistical analysis, and thorough case investigations. The editorial stance supports scientific inquiry into subjects of public interest, advocating for a rational and evidence-based approach. The publication aims to demystify UFO reports by identifying mundane explanations while acknowledging the existence of genuinely unexplained cases that warrant further study. The emphasis is on meticulous data collection and analysis to achieve objectivity.

This document, titled "Structure actuelle du GEPAN," details the organizational structure and operational methodologies of the French GEPAN (Groupe d'Études et de Recherches sur les Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non Identifiés) group. It was published as issue 19 of an unspecified magazine, likely from the late 1970s given the dates of activities mentioned (1978).

GEPAN's Structure and Objectives

GEPAN aims to establish a national file of observations and define a methodology for modeling the UAP phenomenon. To achieve these goals, it has adopted a structure comprising seven specialized groups:

1. Rapid Intervention Group: This group is alerted to particularly interesting UAP observations (close encounters, landings with presumed traces). The Gendarmerie contacts the Gendarmerie Direction in Paris, which then decides whether to inform GEPAN in Toulouse. The group's task is to quickly assemble a multidisciplinary investigation team and provide them with necessary equipment. Since March 1978, this group has been called upon seven times, intervening twice in June and July.

2. Trace Collection Group: This group is activated when physical traces (on the ground or vegetation) are found following a presumed UAP landing. Their essential task is to conduct on-site measurements and collect samples (via coring) for specialized laboratories. Members have specialized training (e.g., in pedology) and specific equipment. This group must intervene within 24 to 48 hours of a presumed landing. It has been solicited twice but information arrived too late for deployment.

3. Radar Alert Group: This group intervenes based on requests from the rapid intervention group following a visual observation, or directly from air traffic control personnel. Their research focuses on military surveillance radar, civil radar (air navigation, meteorology), and data calculation/processing. The goal is to detect potential UAP echoes and extract "material" data about the UAP (echo consistency, response to radar types, speed, heading, acceleration).

4. Expertise Group: Initially, this group analyzed hundreds of observation reports sent to Toulouse by the Gendarmerie. Currently, it examines recent reports and regularly sorts through available files, processing an average of 100 to 200 cases per month.

5. National File Group: This group's mission is to code all observation reports classified as type D to establish a computerized national file of UAP observations. The coding method is developed in collaboration with the statistical analysis group and external CNES consultants. Each observation can be characterized by about thirty criteria.

6. Statistical Analysis Group: Composed of statisticians, mathematicians, and computer scientists from CNES, this group analyzes the data in the developing national file to identify properties of the UAP phenomenon collectively.

7. Simovni Group: To facilitate the collection of UAP observation parameters (shape, angular dimensions, colors, location, azimuth), GEPAN is developing an optical apparatus called Simovni (contraction of "simulateur optique d'OVNI"). This device, mounted on a tripod, will superimpose images of various UAP shapes and sizes onto the landscape observed by the witness through binoculars, allowing the witness to simulate their observation and providing numerical data to investigators. Two opticians and one engineer are working on this project.

Investigation Process

An investigation begins with at least one witness reporting an unusual aerial phenomenon to the Gendarmerie. The initial data provided to investigators varies depending on the case's age, from Gendarmerie reports for older cases to direct information for recent ones.

Field Investigation:

Investigations start with a regrouping of participants at the Gendarmerie brigade where the witnesses were heard. Here, reported facts and possible explanations are examined in detail, and the intervention program is planned. Fieldwork involves interviewing witnesses separately at the observation site, aiming for conditions as close as possible to the original observation. The process includes:

• Reconstitution of facts: Witnesses recount their version of events, placing themselves back in the situation of their observation. Investigators record the interviews and take notes, possibly making diverse recordings or time evaluations.
• Interviews: Investigators guide the discussion, revisiting observation phases, clarifying expressions, and probing for details not initially mentioned (e.g., sounds, smells, sky conditions). Measurements are taken.
• Time Measurements: Witnesses use their finger to trace the object's trajectory, respecting its perceived speed. Multiple simulations help obtain average values.
• Distance Measurements: Initial estimates use car odometers; for shorter distances, a double decameter is used. IGN or State-Major maps provide additional information. Witnesses must provide precise references (e.g., passing over a specific field or house).
• Angle Measurements: Azimuth (horizontal direction) and site (vertical angle relative to the horizon) are used to locate objects. Azimuth 0° is North, 90° is East, 180° is South. Site 0° is the horizon, 90° is the zenith.
• Object Characteristics: Investigators document the object's shape (witness drawings), colors (using a Pantone Multiset 500 catalog), and inclination (using an inclinometer). Apparent dimensions are evaluated using a theodolite, comparing the object to landscape elements or having the witness manipulate the theodolite to simulate the object's position.

Data Analysis:

After the field investigation, participants analyze the case. This involves:

• Collecting Complementary Data: Investigators seek information from official services (meteorology, air navigation, Gendarmerie, armies) to aid analysis (weather conditions, aircraft, previous investigations, witness notoriety).
• Internal Coherence of Witness Accounts: Redundant data from questions, measurements, and witness evaluations are compared to verify the internal consistency of each witness's narrative. This includes calculating flight characteristics (angular speed, dimensions, trajectory) from the data.
• Global Coherence of Witness Accounts: Narratives from different witnesses are compared, as are the results of calculations.
• Evaluation of Average Object Characteristics: If witness accounts are coherent, an average estimation of the phenomenon's objective characteristics is made, accounting for potential witness evaluation errors.
• Comparison with Known Celestial Phenomena: A reference guide helps analyze whether the reported phenomenon is similar to known celestial events.
• Psychological Analysis: A psychologist evaluates each witness's personality and sensitivity, providing a report on their sincerity and credibility. This contact also helps gather additional details and assess witness reactions.

Results and Conclusions

After analyzing ten cases (from older observations), two were eliminated (Draguignan due to lack of coherence, Saint-Ciers-d'Abzac identified as the planet Mars). The remaining eight were classified as "non-identified," meaning their characteristics, witness accounts, and internal coherence were sufficient to suggest a specific phenomenon not easily explained by known causes.

The investigators and analysts concluded that the witnesses generally observed real facts, with the exception of the Draguignan case. They could not identify the observed facts with any known phenomenon, despite significant effort. Based on the collected evidence, they are convinced that a material phenomenon is at the origin of most observations.

Scientific Council Review

The second meeting of the Scientific Council of GEPAN took place on June 6-7, 1978. The council expressed satisfaction with the quality of work and adherence to previous recommendations. They emphasized the need for scientific rigor and objectivity in GEPAN's studies.

Recommendations included:

• Personnel: Maintain the use of numerous part-time personnel to diversify skills, but reinforce the permanent staff with another scientist.
• Information Collection: Gendarmerie procedures are satisfactory, but a short meteorological questionnaire should be distributed to brigades to improve knowledge of weather conditions during observations. Feedback from GEPAN to brigades should be maintained.
• Rapid Intervention Group: Support the development of an optical simulator and improved photographic equipment. Interventions should prioritize very recent cases and be conducted swiftly.
• Trace Collection Group: Seek expertise from a chemist and investigate the measurement of soil and electrical parameters. The group should be able to intervene rapidly on sites of notable close encounters.
• Radar Alert Group: Compile a list of operational radar systems nationwide and explore possibilities for time-shifted information exploitation. Improve documentation on false echoes and anomalous propagations.
• File Constitution and Statistical Analysis: Continue building the computer file from incoming data. Avoid re-investigating old cases unless analogies with recent cases warrant verification. Define analogy criteria for computer sorting. Pursue statistical work, including the analysis of psychosociological data, particularly regarding witness sincerity and credibility.
• Rare Phenomena: GEPAN should compile a list of rare phenomena observed by French and foreign scientific laboratories.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this document are the detailed methodology of UAP investigation, the importance of scientific rigor and objectivity, and the structured approach GEPAN employs. The editorial stance is clearly in favor of systematic, scientific investigation of UAP, aiming to identify the phenomena and understand their nature, while acknowledging the challenges and the need for continuous improvement of their methods. The document emphasizes that most observed phenomena are likely material in origin, even if their specific nature remains unknown.

This issue of OVNI magazine, identified as Volume 1, Issue 4, with a publication date in the 4th quarter of 1978, is published by Imprimerie du Sud in France. The cover headline, 'Quelques objets et quelques phénomènes pouvant être à l'origine de confusions' (Some objects and phenomena that can be the origin of confusions), sets the tone for the issue's focus on misidentification of UFOs.

Research and Hypotheses

The scientific council believes it is too early to formulate a preferential hypothesis for UFOs. Instead, it has requested GEPAN (Groupe d'études des phénomènes aérospatiaux non-identifiés) to comprehensively list all current theories about the universe and phenomena that appear anomalous according to current knowledge. This research is to be conducted with objectivity, and the findings will be presented to the council at a future meeting.

Public Information

The scientific council deems it necessary to inform the public about GEPAN's work. GEPAN is asked to prepare a brochure by October 1978, detailing its methodology, presenting statistical study results, and offering guidance to improve the quality of observations from witnesses. Furthermore, GEPAN is authorized to share its methodology with officially declared private groups.

Analyzing UFO Photographs

The article 'Que penser des photographies d'OVNI?' (What to think of UFO photographs?) addresses the common belief that photographs provide absolute proof of UFO existence. However, it cautions that the field is rife with hoaxes and trickery, making certainty difficult. Famous fakes are created using various objects suspended by threads or through photographic tricks. While some documents are convincing, even atmospheric or optical phenomena can contribute to illusions. Analyzing nighttime photographs is nearly impossible. For daytime photos of unusual objects, analytical methods exist, including measuring negative opacity, studying illuminated and dark areas, contour sharpness, and atmospheric transparency. These methods can reject many fakes. However, translucent objects pose a challenge, as a well-made model can create the same illusion as a distant UFO. The article concludes that even for photographs that have withstood sophisticated analysis, doubt remains permissible, and no expertise can definitively convince everyone.

Several specific photographic cases are presented:

• Alamogordo, USA (October 1957): Photographs considered apparently authentic but lacking information on the object's distance or dimensions.
• McMinnville, USA (May 11, 1950): Two photographs examined by the Condon Commission and deemed authentic, but later analysis by GEPAN suggested they were of a model suspended by a thread.
• Santa Ana, California, USA (August 3, 1965): Four photographs taken by a truck driver, considered interesting but with reservations about authenticity.
• San José de Valderas, Spain (June 1, 1967): A photograph analyzed by CNES revealed a translucent model suspended by a thread.

Natural Phenomena as a Source of Confusion

The magazine dedicates significant space to explaining how various natural objects and phenomena can be mistaken for UFOs. These include:

• Astronomical Objects: The Sun and Moon can appear to move due to the observer's motion or interposing clouds. Stars and planets are generally immobile but can appear as colored luminous spots under specific atmospheric conditions, often leading to misidentifications of stationary UFOs.
• Meteorites: Brief flashes of light from burning meteorites in the atmosphere.
• Clouds: High or low clouds can adopt suggestive shapes and colors, moving with the wind, sometimes at different speeds than ground-level winds.
• Atmospheric Phenomena: Halos (colored luminous phenomena around the sun or moon), mirages (requiring specific meteorological conditions), and fog (which can create luminous phenomena with unusual trajectories).
• Ball Lightning: A poorly understood atmospheric phenomenon appearing as a luminous ball during thunderstorms, with rapid movements.
• Auroras: Normally seen near the poles, they can be visible further south during extreme magnetic agitation.
• Artificial Satellites: Appear as luminous points moving regularly across the sky, with movements that can be misinterpreted as zig-zag patterns.
• Barium Clouds: Formed by atmospheric research, these can be visible from the ground.
• Rocket Stages: The trajectory of upper stages of rockets carrying satellites can appear as a series of lights.
• Spacecraft Re-entry: The fiery re-entry of vehicles like Apollo-11 into the atmosphere.

Man-Made Objects and Phenomena

Beyond natural phenomena, various man-made objects and activities are also cited as common sources of confusion:

• Balloons: Research balloons (launched by CNES) and weather balloons (ballons-sondes) can appear as large, slow-moving, sometimes colored objects, often oval-shaped.
• Helicopters: Both civilian and military helicopters, flying day or night, at low altitudes, and sometimes equipped with colored lights, are frequently mistaken for UFOs.
• Parachutists: Especially at night, parachutists with red and white lights can cause confusion.
• Hot Air Balloons (Mongolfières): Used for local events, they move slowly and can display vivid colors at sunset.
• Commercial Aircraft: Their navigation lights (flashing or steady) can be mistaken for UFOs, particularly in fog or at night.
• Automobiles and Coaches: Their lights and headlights can create deceptive appearances in fog or at night.
• Terrestrial Vehicles: Any vehicle with metallic or glass parts can reflect sunlight or other light sources, creating luminous effects.
• Tractors and Agricultural Machinery: Modern agricultural machines with numerous lights (fixed and flashing), powerful headlights, and the dust or debris they kick up can create an aura that might be misinterpreted, especially by those unfamiliar with rural environments.
• Insects: Luminous insects (fireflies) or insects illuminated by car headlights.
• Foliage: Tree leaves and paper debris.

Information and Contacts

The issue concludes with information on how to obtain further details. A brochure describing GEPAN's methodology and results is available. For further information, readers are directed to GEPAN at the Centre spatial de Toulouse or the Press-Relations department of CNES in Paris. The magazine also lists contact details for the S.P.E.P.S.E. (Société Parisienne d'Etude des Phénomènes Spatiaux et Etranges), a research organization dedicated to investigating strange phenomena, including UFOs, and its various working groups.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue is the critical examination of UFO sightings, with a strong emphasis on debunking common misidentifications. The editorial stance is one of scientific skepticism, advocating for rigorous analysis and a methodical approach to understanding reported phenomena. The magazine aims to educate the public about natural and man-made phenomena that can mimic UFO sightings, thereby promoting a more rational understanding of the subject. There is a clear effort to distinguish between genuine unexplained phenomena and those that have mundane explanations, while also acknowledging the ongoing research efforts by organizations like GEPAN and S.P.E.P.S.E.