Vaucluse Ufologie - No 15 - Decembre 1979

Magazine Overview

Title: VAUCLUSE UFOLOGIE
Issue: N°15
Date: Trimestriel, December 1979
Publisher: G.R.E.P.O. (Groupement de Recherche et d'Étude du Phénomène OVNI)
Country: France
Language: French
ISSN: 0222-2272

This issue of Vaucluse Ufologie is dedicated to the "SPECIAL C.E.C.R.U. 6e CESSION" held in Avignon on October 27-28, 1979. The cover features a map of the Vaucluse region with illustrations of flying saucers and a ribbed circular object, highlighting the event's location and theme.

G.R.E.P.O. Organization and Information

The bulletin provides detailed information about the G.R.E.P.O. organization, which is declared as an ASBL (non-profit association) and a delegation for the Vaucluse region of "LUMIÈRES DANS LA NUIT." It lists the composition of the bureau, including President d'honneur Camille Ferrier and active President René Faudrin, along with other key roles such as Vice-President Jean Pierre Troadec and Secretary General Lilyane Troadec. The editorial committee consists of Lilyane Troadec and Jean Pierre.

Collaboration with the publication is open to all G.R.E.P.O. members, with articles and documents being the responsibility of their authors. Reproduction of articles is permitted with clear indication of source and author. Subscription and membership details are provided: 50 Francs for subscription and membership to G.R.E.P.O., 20 Francs for a simple subscription, and 5 Francs for a single issue. Members receive a membership card and can participate in G.R.E.P.O. activities. Correspondence should be addressed to Jean Pierre Troadec in Lyon, and the registered office is in Sorgues.

Opening Speech of the 6th CECRU Session

The speech, likely delivered by Jean Pierre Troadec, welcomes participants to the sixth session of the CECRU (Comité Européen de Coordination de la Recherche Ufologique) in Avignon. It emphasizes the shared interest in the phenomenon of extraterrestrial life and the goal of gaining understanding. The speaker stresses the importance of working together and adhering to the program. A key point is the need for members to be familiar with the "Protocole de Coopération" that binds the participating associations, noting that many are unaware of its contents or the nature of CECRU itself. The speech proposes modifying the Cooperation Protocol during this session and updating it regularly. It also suggests that the Presidency of CECRU be held by the same person for a year, with the General Secretariat rotating quarterly among organizing groups, and the Vice-Presidency held by the organizer of the previous session to ensure better coordination.

Commission Activities and Proposals

The speech mentions that the Investigation Commission met in Dijon on October 12th, outside of a regular CECRU session. It expresses hope that other permanent commissions will also meet independently to work more efficiently, using CECRU sessions primarily as a forum to present their findings. A proposal is made to the Administrative Commission to define general regulations for the functioning of these commissions. Furthermore, the speaker strongly advocates for the establishment of a permanent Scientific Commission within CECRU during this session, composed of specialists and researchers with scientific and engineering backgrounds, to cover all research activities and facilitate dialogue with the scientific community.

European Coordination and Group Participation

Another section, possibly an editorial or a report from the CECRU President, discusses the role of the European Committee for Coordination of Ufological Research (CECRU). It aims to encompass all ufological research, particularly concerning unidentified aerospace phenomena, across France, French-speaking regions, and the broader European continent. The author acknowledges this as a distant goal and suggests strengthening existing ties. The importance of rigorous participation from member groups is stressed, including adherence to the cooperation protocol, submitting participation attestations, and sharing opinions on controversial subjects. The example of a specialist directory, agreed upon in Dourdan in October 1978 but not yet realized, is cited. While some members are hesitant about being individually listed, a compromise is suggested where groups could provide a list of specialized domains without naming individuals, allowing for contact through the groups themselves.

The text acknowledges that much remains to be understood about the UFO phenomenon (O.v.n.i.). It suggests that by improving organization and discipline, the time to reach understanding could be reduced. The hope is expressed that the current two-day weekend meeting will lead to progress, both in human connections and research. Future meetings are planned for March, June, and October of the following year, with suggestions for locations in Northern France, Paris, and Luxembourg, as well as a congress in Montluçon in 1980.

Organization of the Two-Day Session (October 27-28, 1979)

The schedule for the two-day session in Avignon is detailed:

• Saturday, October 27:
• 9:00 - 11:00: Participant reception and room allocation at "Château."
• 11:00 - 12:00: First plenary session (projection room), including general assembly, program presentation, intervention by V.E.R.O.N.I.C.A., opening speech, presentation of present and new groups.
• 12:00 - 13:30: Lunch at the Château refectory.
• 14:00 - 15:00: Second plenary session, including a report from the Dijon Investigation Commission meeting and commission assignments.
• 15:00 - 19:00: Work in commissions (administrative, operational public, group management, contacts, investigations, detection, observation evenings, document study, scientific).
• 19:00 - 20:30: Dinner at the "Château."
• 21:00 - 21:30: Third plenary session (tomorrow's program).
• From 21:00: Individual interventions on research topics.

• Sunday, October 28:
• 9:00 - 9:15: General assembly.
• 9:15 - 10:00: Work in commissions.
• 10:00 - 11:45: Fourth plenary session, including commission reports.
• 11:45 - 12:00: Closing aperitif.
• 12:15 - 13:00: Lunch at the Château refectory.
• 14:00 - 16:00: Open debate and closing of the session.

The schedule is signed by René Faudrin and Lilyane Troadec for G.R.E.P.O.

Communication from Mr. A. Martinez

This communication, dated Nîmes, October 22, 1979, addresses colleagues before the 6th CECRU session. Mr. Martinez expresses concern about the smooth functioning of CECRU, particularly regarding the follow-up after the 5th session. He notes difficulties in obtaining reports from the Investigation Commission and membership attestations from some groups. He recounts a misunderstanding with SVEPS regarding the detention of an Investigation Commission report, which he received late. He emphasizes the need for each group to take responsibility and submit documents promptly to avoid future misunderstandings. He also mentions a dispute with F.U.NO. regarding the interpretation of their proposal for a "Studies and Documents" commission, urging a comparison of CECRU's letter and F.U.NO.'s communication of October 13, 1979. He concludes by stressing the importance of groups fulfilling their responsibilities and commitments for the continuity of CECRU.

List of Participating Groups and Members

A comprehensive list details the ufological groups and their members who participated in the 6th CECRU session in Avignon on October 27-28, 1979. Groups listed include A.A.M.T., AMATEURS d'INSOLITE, A.E.S.V. Suisse, A.E.S.V. Aix-enP, A.D.R.U.P., C.E.M.O.C.P.I., C.E.R.P.I., C.L.E.U., C.L.L.D.L.N., C.S.E.R.U., F.U.NO., G.P.U.N., G.R.I.P.H.O.M., G.U.B., P.A.L.M.O.S., S.L.E.P.S., G.E.R.O., S.L.U.B., U.R.E.O., V.E.R.O.N.I.C.A., and G.R.E.P.O., along with their respective members present.

List of Invited Groups and Responses

Another section lists groups that were invited to the session, categorized by whether they responded, were present, were absent but excused, or did not reply. It also notes groups that requested membership in CECRU, such as S.L.U.B., S.L.E.P.S., C.E.R.F.I., and C.L.L.D.L.N. The list includes groups like ANUBIS, A.D.R.U.P., C.E.M.O.C.P.I., C.L.E.U., C.S.E.R.U., G.L.R.U., G.N.E.OVNI, G.P.U.N., F.U.NO, G.R.I.P.H.O.M., GTR.OVNI, PALMOS, S.L.E.P.S. (Lemanique), S.P.E.P.S.E., S.V.E.P.S., V.E.R.O.N.I.C.A., and others. It also mentions other groups like S.L.U.B. (postulating CECRU), S.LE.P.S. (Lausanne-postulating CECRU), A.E.S.V. Aix-en-Provence, C.E.R.P.I. Saintes, Collectif LDLN de Psycho-Ufologie, C.F.R.U., and various groups from 03100 and 52-55. Some groups like S.C.O.R.U. are noted as being integrated into ADRUP. A.E.S.V. Suisse, C.L.L.D.L.N., SO.V.E.P.S., J.L.RIVERA - MUFON, Jean BIGORNE, Jean-Luc PROUST, ANTARES Europe, G.I.U.E.P.E.S., and OURANOS S.E. are also listed.

Report of the First Meeting of the Investigation Commission (Dijon)

This report details the meeting held in Dijon on October 13-14, 1979. Despite rain and fog, the meeting proceeded with an accordion accompaniment and lively discussions. Notable attendees included Michel Figuet, Jean-Christophe Veve, and M. Lamborey. The report humorously recounts the arrival of participants, including Thierry Pinvidic, who was humorously noted as missing. The meeting involved discussions and reports from various individuals and groups, including S.V.E.P.S. and the arrival of members from Haute-Loire and Luxembourg. The report mentions a detour by Patrick Geoffroy's president and an interaction with Dominique Caudron. The plenary session began around 2 PM, with discussions on room issues and a general debriefing. The report notes the presence of "pistonnés" (well-connected individuals) at an aperitif hosted by the President of A.D.R.U.P. and a subsequent large meal. The Sunday morning session included an anecdote from M. Detre about a mountaineer. The meeting concluded with a pot offered by A.D.R.U.P. at a three-star restaurant, followed by farewells and a wish to reconvene in Dijon in January 1980 for the second meeting.

Decisions Made

1. Luc Vincent: Optical tests were well-received, and interested groups should contact M. Vincent for execution modalities. Challenges remain in mass production of these tests, and radioactivity tests are ongoing. The geological questionnaire was deemed too professional and not retained by most members, who doubted its effectiveness for inexperienced individuals. Groups interested will consult MM. Vincent and Seguet. M. Vincent will develop a new, globally applicable geological questionnaire.

2. Dominique Caudron: Will present a prototype observation report. However, due to lack of information and time, no decision was made. The report will be studied in Avignon. M. Caudron promised to send his file to M. Pinvidic.

3. Press Clippings: Should be sent to Gilbert Peyret in Haute-Loire.

4. Investigation Commission: Requests the administrative commission to collect telephone numbers for the Avignon network.

5. Gendarmerie Report-CECRU Group Issue: Addressed by J. Christophe Veve, it highlights the persistence of the French "système D" (resourcefulness), suggesting it's impossible for GEPAN to recommend associations.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue strongly emphasizes the need for better organization, coordination, and discipline within the ufological research community in Europe. There is a clear push for standardized protocols and clear communication channels among member groups. The editorial stance supports systematic research and the establishment of scientific commissions to lend credibility to the field. The publication serves as a vital information hub for these efforts, documenting meetings, decisions, and participant lists, thereby fostering a sense of collective endeavor in understanding the UFO phenomenon.

This document comprises several reports and meeting minutes from various commissions within a ufological organization, likely the CECRU (Comité Européen de Coordination de la Recherche Ufologique) or a related entity. The content spans discussions on codification, photo analysis, group management, and the study of UFO phenomena and contactees. The language is primarily French.

Commission Enquête (Investigation Commission)

The reports detail ongoing work and decisions made during meetings. A key point of discussion is the cooperation with the Gendarmerie, noting that local cooperation is sometimes difficult. The CLEU, based in Luxembourg, requests more processed information from CECRU meetings, highlighting its isolation and presenting its work on codification by department and country. A concern is raised about the potential increase in numbering for European countries if their codification system is expanded.

Meetings are scheduled to take place in Dijon in January or February, with another in April or May. Decisions made during these meetings will be presented to CECRU sessions. It was decided that members present at the Dijon meeting would become permanent delegates of the Investigation Commission, with the commission operating without a president as an experiment, described as a 'perfect anarchic democracy'.

In Avignon, the priority will be the prototype of the Investigation report, followed by the codification problem. The ADRUP has not received pre-enquiry questionnaire information, which is expected to be distributed in Dijon. G. RICHARD was supposed to send the agenda.

Codification Model

A model for computer-based codification is presented, developed by M. Fedeli Silvère of CLEU (Luxembourg) and adopted. This model comprises 19 fields, including country, observation location, day, month, year, GMT hour, and group. An example of codification for Spain is provided.

Decisions made on October 27th and the following Sunday are declared obsolete. Monsieur Detre of CSERU is tasked with establishing the prototype of the report, incorporating previously established reports. This prototype will be sent to Mr. Souris of CERPI for duplication, with an estimated cost of 1 French Franc per copy. The report will also include the optical test by Luc Vincent of AAMT.

The next meeting of the Investigation Commission will be during the next CECRU meeting. A question remains about who will centralize the reports. Monsieur Detre will update a list of commission members.

Analysis of UFO Photos

The CEMOCPI (Cercle d'Etude des Mystérieux Objets Célestés et des Phénomènes Inconnus) offers to analyze UFO photos to determine their authenticity, as this is a difficult task for many ufological groups. They request detailed information about the observation, including geographical location, weather conditions, camera details (type, lens, exposure time, diaphragm, special accessories), film type and brand, emulsion type and number, and the laboratory where the film was processed. They also ask for information about the photographer's experience.

• Specific instructions are given for different photo types:
• Black and white photos on paper: If self-developed, details of processing products and times are needed. If developed by a professional lab, its name and address are required. The original negative is mandatory for all cases.
• Color photos on paper: The name of the processing laboratory is needed, along with the original negative and a print. If developed by an amateur, similar details to black and white are required.
• Color slides: The name of the processing laboratory is needed, along with the original slide. If developed by an amateur, processing conditions must be provided.

CEMOCPI states that the analysis will be free of charge, except in exceptional cases, and all submitted documents will be returned with a complete report.

Commission Gestion des Groupements (Group Management Commission)

This commission, initially focused on managing associations and finding funding, has shifted its focus. The commission's history is traced from its inception in Dourdan, driven by the SPEPSE, with an initial orientation towards generating revenue through foundations, merchandise, and exhibitions. At a Nîmes meeting, the commission did not take place, and in Avignon, only four groups were represented.

The commission is questioning its purpose and orientation. While ideas from the CECRU meeting in Dourdan are deemed realizable, the main obstacles are the willingness of volunteer members to commit and the financial investment required. The commission notes that a similar pooling of funds was successful in the East of France through the Comité Nord Est des Groupes Ufologiques (CNEGU), based on mutual trust.

Due to the lack of management tasks, the commission decided to change its name and orientation to 'Opérationnel public' (Public Operations). This involves improving existing structures rather than looking too far ahead. Discussions included technical and budgetary details for a CECRU session, planning conferences, and reducing group expenses.

Following an interview with Esterle of GEPAN, it was advised to contact Ets JOBIN YVON regarding a quote for 10 networks. However, some groups, like GREPO, only need 4 networks. The commission aimed to facilitate bulk orders and transactions to obtain better prices.

A letter from the administrative commission to GEPAN requested clarification on a point, and the response is awaited. The quote is available for interested groups.

The commission realized that by slightly deviating from its primary vocation, it could align with the objectives of the 'Etude et Documents' (Study and Documents) commission. They met with J.M. Bonay, Francis Selaries, and A. Barnicaud.

Second Part of the Meeting: 'Opérationnel Public'

An oratorical debate occurred between J.M. Bonay, Anne Varrault, Monique Sassel, and Lilyane Troadec. J.M. Bonay proposed the creation of this commission, questioning its utility. The group realized they had misunderstood the communication from F.U.N.O. (likely related to J.M. Bonay's group), believing it was intended to provide documentation for new groups. J.M. Bonay explained that F.U.N.O. did not intend to impose ideas but rather to suggest how the commission could assist others by relieving them of certain tasks.

J.M. Bonay acknowledged that his proposal was too direct and seemed to impose F.U.N.O.'s ideas. He believed that all groups were ready for mutual sharing, trust, and sincerity, allowing ufological progress by overcoming individualistic tendencies, internal conflicts, and incompatibilities. He had hoped to address individuals prepared for the concept of the CECRU, emphasizing openness and intellectual honesty.

The group questioned if there was a possibility of exploitation within the proposal and suggested starting with new foundations. J.M. Bonay will ask each commission for 10 minutes to see if the 'Etude et Documents' commission could be useful to them. If not, the 'Gestion' commission could adopt some 'secretariat' ideas.

Philosophical and sociological issues were raised, including the idea of marketing OVNI phenomena through items like lighters or keychains, provided significant publicity demystifies the phenomenon.

Given J.M. Bonay's strong anti-myth stance and lack of knowledge about the phenomenon, the group questioned his group's objectives, finding it unusual for a ufologist to focus solely on administration. The 'Gestion' commission is perceived as less valued because it doesn't engage in ufology but rather acts as an anteroom for a federation's secretariat.

J.M. Bonay explained the name 'Ufologie nouvelle' (New Ufology), which is distinct from traditional ufology. This group claims not to conduct investigations or conferences, nor to know about the phenomenon, wanting to remain 'virgin' of myth pollution. Their goal is to study the motivations, degree of 'intoxication,' and objectivity of ufologists.

The group found this declaration noteworthy and decided to share it, considering the sociological study of ufologists to be interesting. The administrative commission will now assess the credibility of J.M. Bonay's statements.

In conclusion, the commission decided to hold one final meeting in Dijon, where the number of participants would determine the continuation of their action and the refinement of their activities.

Commission Contactes (Contacts Commission)

This commission, with Jean-Pierre Troadec as animator and rapporteur, includes members from various groups. The first CECRU session with a large number of participants indicates growing interest in contactees.

A definition of 'contactee' was established: a witness who, following an experience of the UFO type, claims to provide information from extraterrestrial beings. Communication can occur through speech, thought, gesture, writing, or other means.

Two recent books about a contact case in Corsica were discussed. A commission member met the contactee last summer, confirming the account.

The case of Dr. P., with a report from another member, was also studied. This contact occurred in the Vence region, where similar cases have been reported.

As these investigations are in their early stages, no further declarations will be made at this time.

Most opinions agree that the study of contactees is primarily valuable from a socio-psychological perspective, as the messages often challenge religions.

The Miguères problem, studied by AESV, was revisited to provide an update. The GREPO study on the contact of Pierre Monnet was also discussed. While AESV-GREPO have different conclusions on their respective cases, it is suggested that this example be adopted by other groups to achieve a comprehensive study of contactees by ufological groups, which has not been done before. France, like other countries, lacks official groups dedicated to this issue. Each CECRU group received a special issue (70 pages) titled 'Contact - Pierre Monnet'.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this document are the organization and coordination of ufological research through various commissions and meetings. There's a strong emphasis on information sharing, data analysis (codification, photo analysis), and the systematic study of phenomena and individuals involved in ufology. The document reflects an effort to professionalize ufological research by establishing standardized procedures and collaborative efforts. The editorial stance appears to be one of diligent, systematic investigation and a desire to bring structure and clarity to the field, while also acknowledging the challenges of inter-group cooperation and differing methodologies.

This document comprises reports from various commissions of the CECRU (Comité Européen de Coordination des Recherches Ovni) during its 6th session, held on October 27-28, 1979. The content details the discussions, decisions, and proposals from several working groups, including Veillées d'Observation, Etude et Documents, Détection, Scientifique, and Administrative.

Commission Veillées d'Observation

Jean-Pierre Troadec presented a slideshow of famous UFO cases and a database of approximately 270 global contact cases, including abductions and teletransports, categorized by type and time period. The commission noted a lack of interesting observations and expressed a wish for commission composition to be defined in advance. Jean-Jacques Montoya served as the rapporteur.

Commission Etude et Documents

This commission, initially a project, met to define its actions concerning other groups. Jean-Marc Bonay, the rapporteur, noted that the commission's role was perceived as purely secretarial. It was decided to revise the project's preparation to include more comprehensive information exchange. The commission's future responsibility was assigned to Francis Selaries. The report also mentioned that the administrative commission failed to discuss the future of this commission as planned.

Commission GESTION

This commission's report, prepared by Lilyane Troadec in the absence of Jean-Marc Bonay, highlighted a decision to re-evaluate the commission's approach with other groups to avoid hindering their ongoing projects. The commission GESTION expressed a desire to integrate into the ETUDES et DOCUMENTS commission, viewing the latter's role as primarily secretarial. The responsible party for ETUDES et DOCUMENTS reserved their opinion on this merger, requesting time to consider it.

Commission Détection

J.P. Frambourg, animator of the Avignon Detection Commission, discussed the technical dossier from the Dourdan session, expected by the end of 1979. The CEMOCPI reported on its survey of detection activities among private groups, with 30% responding. The commission debated the fundamental question of 'Why detection?' and its place relative to other groups. Monsieur Bedet provided a historical overview. Participants agreed that detection is necessary for future studies and provides complementary information. Various fields of study were discussed, including magnetic, electromagnetic, and radio waves. The commission proposed reviving a project for detection activity reports to be sent to CEMOCPI. There was agreement on physical parameters but not yet on calibration. J.P. Frambourg regretted that detection remained at a "primary" level. A suggestion was made to organize a field meeting. The commission also advised on regulations for 27MHz radio equipment and awaited GEPAN's reaction to a letter from CECRU.

Commission Scientifique

This commission, initiated by René Faudrin and Thierry Pinvidic, held its first meeting in Avignon. Its purpose was to determine its existence and scope. It was decided that the commission would not undertake general scientific research but would facilitate dialogue between private groups and official scientific circles, particularly with GEPAN. The goal was to identify precise study directions concerning UFO phenomena and to compile a list of affiliated scientists. The commission's work was intended to be primarily conducted outside of CECRU meetings, through correspondence and travel. Jean-Christophe Veve served as the rapporteur.

Commission Administrative

Attendees included representatives from various organizations such as G.P.U.N., C.L.E.U., S.V.E.P.S., and G.R.E.P.O. Key agenda items included a presentation of a message from GEPAN concerning private groups, a letter from CECRU to GEPAN, and the preparation of a code of ethics. A "Commission Information" project was postponed. The authenticity of documents and slides was deemed a long-term task. The Affaire Migueres was discussed, with indications that legal proceedings might be abandoned. A "Fichier de Spécialistes" was also mentioned.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes throughout these commission reports are the organization and coordination of UFO research efforts, the collection and analysis of data, the establishment of communication channels between different groups and with official scientific bodies, and the definition of methodologies and objectives within ufology. The CECRU appears to be a coordinating body aiming to structure and legitimize UFO research through its various commissions, fostering collaboration and information exchange among its member organizations.

This document appears to be a newsletter or internal report from the Comité Européen de Coordination de la Recherche Ufologique (C.E.C.R.U.), dated November 1979. It details administrative matters, meeting schedules, member lists, and correspondence related to ufological research and collaboration.

Administrative Commission Report

The administrative commission of the C.E.C.R.U. expresses its astonishment at the attitude of the G.R.E.P.O. towards the SO.V.E.P.S. group during the entry of its representatives. The commission echoes the disapproval of C.E.C.R.U. participants, stating that even if a group did not respect administrative indications, remarks should not lead to brutal accusations. The prevailing spirit should foster better understanding and a more welcoming attitude towards ufologists, regardless of past disputes. The commission urges everyone to work towards preventing such incidents in the future and decides to re-invite SO.V.E.P.S. to the next meeting, requesting adherence to administrative requirements.

Future Meetings

The C.E.C.R.U. will henceforth meet twice a year, on a semestrial basis. Scheduled meetings include:

• May/June 1980: A.D.R.U.P. in Beaune (subject to confirmation)
• October/November 1980: C.L.L.D.L.N. in Lyon
• May/June 1981: S.L.E.P.S. in Lausanne
• October/November 1981: S.V.E.P.S. in Toulon (with participation from Italy and Spain)

Additionally, the group 03100 is organizing the 3rd congress in Montluçon on April 11-13, 1980. The possibility of an international ufological congress was also considered.

An annex is mentioned, listing the members of the C.E.C.R.U. and observer groups.

Commission Regulations

The regulations for commissions have been sent out and proposed to each group by G.R.E.P.O., who awaits suggestions and objections.

Next Agenda Items

The upcoming agenda includes:

• Updating the cooperation protocol proposed by N. GRESLOU.
• Commission regulations, as an addendum to the protocol.
• A code of ethics prepared by F. CREBELY.
• Follow-up on the letter to G.E.P.A.N.
• A summary of the prospecting efforts with Embassies.
• New group memberships.
• Initiation of the Congress project.
• C.E.C.R.U.-PRESS reports (including a letter from J.C. BOURRET).
• A C.E.C.R.U. letter refined by experienced groups.

R. FAUDRIN, rapporteur of the administrative commission, signs off on this section.

List of Member Associations (October 28, 1979)

This section provides a comprehensive list of member associations of the European Committee for Coordination of Ufological Research (C.E.C.R.U.) as of October 28, 1979. The list is organized by country (France, Luxembourg, Switzerland) and includes the association's name, contact person (where available), address, and sometimes specific phone numbers or postal codes. Notable French groups include A.A.M.T., A.D.R.U.P., A.N.U.B.I.S., AMATEURS DE L'INSOLITE, C.E.R.P.I., C.L.L.D.L.N., G.E.O.S., G.E.R.O., G.L.R.U., G.P.U.N., G.R.E.P.O., P.A.L.M.O.S., S.L.U.B., S.V.E.P.S., and VERONICA. Luxembourg is represented by C.L.E.U., and Switzerland by S.L.E.P.S. Observer members and individual members are also listed.

Telephone Alert Table

An updated telephone alert table for the C.E.C.R.U. from November 1979 is provided. This table lists various groups with their corresponding contact numbers and names of individuals, along with specific hours or conditions for contact (e.g., 'bureau', 'après 19 h', 'soir', 'repas+soir', 'ou dimanche').

Article from National Press - Following the 6th Session in Avignon

This article, dated October 28, 1979, from Avignon, discusses the 6th session of the European Committee for Coordination of Ufological Research (C.E.C.R.U.) held in Avignon, organized by G.R.E.P.O. The session highlighted the growing utility of the committee, evidenced by the adhesion of new groups. Increased representation from Switzerland and Luxembourg was noted, with decisions made for Italy and Spain to participate in future sessions. The need to engage more with the press was emphasized to inform the public about ufological research, which has existed for 30 years but is poorly understood due to limited and often inaccurate popular literature. Approximately 100 ufologists participated in various commissions (Investigations, detection, management, document studies, scientific research, close encounter research, observation vigils, and administration) to advance the field. Notable results were achieved by the Investigations commission with a standardized questionnaire and data codification. The contact commission aimed for a better approach to cases, and the scientific commission was tasked with dialogue with the scientific community and GEPAN. The C.E.C.R.U. will now meet twice annually, with the 7th session to be organized in Côte d'Or by A.D.R.U.P.

Letter to GEPAN

This section contains a letter from the C.E.C.R.U. to Monsieur Alain ESTERLE, head of GEPAN, dated October 28, 1979, from Avignon. The letter acknowledges GEPAN's recent communications and oral intervention. It addresses GEPAN's request to know the priorities of each group, stating that French ufological groups belonging to C.E.C.R.U. have noted GEPAN's communications. The letter expresses that private associations have contributed significantly to the genesis of ufology, including its scientific aspects, and that their research has been hampered by lack of time and financial resources. The C.E.C.R.U. is concerned about a systematic press campaign that seems to aim at forgetting the contributions of these private groups and asks for GEPAN's position on this matter. The letter also points out that private associations, despite representing the past of ufology, are developing programs for its future. It recalls previous communications to GEPAN regarding their operational methods and ongoing work. The C.E.C.R.U. suggests that while GEPAN might not directly intervene in sky surveillance, investigation is a form of work deserving attention. They question the status of proposals made by Monsieur POHER regarding investigator training, which seemed confusingly answered during an oral presentation on October 18, 1979. The C.E.C.R.U. believes that a project for investigator training, if implemented, could lead to greater efficiency in investigations and reduce the reliance on questionable 'official investigators'. They also note that optical networks have been ordered by associations and express hope for GEPAN's clarification on the fate of these purchase proposals. Furthermore, several groups have requested the creation of a comprehensive documentation fund, and the C.E.C.R.U. is unaware of GEPAN's plans for this. Finally, the C.E.C.R.U. hopes GEPAN will assist in ongoing research projects like LAGONIA, cataloguing observations, and systematic phenomenon detection, rather than waiting for results.

The letter concludes by stating that the C.E.C.R.U. believes GEPAN can be a key player in advancing ufology scientifically, with innovative methods, and improving knowledge of UFO phenomena. Private associations are seen as the most natural emanation of public interest in UFOs and should have a role in understanding the phenomenon, in a spirit of cooperation with GEPAN or other official scientific bodies. The C.E.C.R.U. requests a response and asks that it be addressed to G.R.E.P.O. for distribution to member groups.

GEPAN's Response

A letter from the Centre National d'Études Spatiales (CNES), Centre Spatial de Toulouse, dated November 23, 1979, addressed to M. René FAUDRIN of G.R.E.P.O., acknowledges receipt of the C.E.C.R.U.'s letter of October 28. The author states they understood it was not a 'requisitoire' and therefore does not feel the need to act as GEPAN's 'lawyer'. They remind C.E.C.R.U. that at a meeting on September 12, 1978, it was explicitly stated that GEPAN would not maintain regular correspondence with private groups due to availability and secretariat constraints. The author notes that C.E.C.R.U. seems to have retained only the information and ideas from that meeting that suited them, questioning if this is a congenital flaw in ufology. Regarding the arguments about GEPAN's intentions towards private groups, the author finds them contradictory. For the MAGONIA project, GEPAN chose neither official sponsorship nor outright rejection, defining its role as an 'attentive and interested observer' with M. PINVIDIC. The author implies that other aspects mentioned (colorimeter, SIMOVNI, rapid intervention groups, theodolite, psychological tests) are, at worst, an acknowledgment by GEPAN of the clarity and soundness of the ideas presented.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this document revolve around the organization and coordination of ufological research in Europe. There is a strong emphasis on administrative procedures, clear communication channels, and the formalization of protocols and codes of ethics. The document highlights the tension and ongoing dialogue between official bodies like GEPAN and private ufological associations, with the C.E.C.R.U. advocating for greater recognition, cooperation, and support for the work done by independent researchers. The editorial stance appears to be one of promoting a more scientific, organized, and collaborative approach to ufology, while also defending the contributions and legitimacy of private research efforts.

This document appears to be a collection of correspondence and reports from various ufological groups, likely from a publication or newsletter. The content spans from a formal letter by Alain Esterle, Head of the Study Group on Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena (GEPAN), to detailed accounts of presentations and discussions from a meeting held on Saturday, October 27, 1979, and a follow-up discussion regarding inter-group relations.

Correspondence from Alain Esterle

The initial section features a letter from Alain Esterle, dated implicitly before the October 27th meeting, addressing concerns about private ufological groups and their 'paternity disputes.' He clarifies GEPAN's stance on American ufological groups and their investigation methods, stating that this will be detailed in a forthcoming letter to French private groups. This letter will include a translation of a previous correspondence to American groups, inviting French groups to similar collaboration. Esterle expresses hope for developing relations and offers best regards.

List of Interventions - Saturday, October 27, 1979

The main body of the document details the events of a meeting on October 27, 1979. The G.U.B. of La Tour-de-Trême presented their project for a ufological exhibition and conference scheduled from December 15, 1979, to January 1, 1980.

• Presentations were given by representatives of several ufological groups:
• A.E.S.V. Suisse (Association d'Etude des Soucoupes Volantes) of Vevey
• C.E.R.P.I. (Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches des Phénomènes Inexpliqués) of Saintes
• C.L.L.D.L.N. (Cercle Lyonnais Lumières Dans La Nuit) of Lyon
• G.U.B. (Groupe Ufologique Bullois) of La Tour-de-Trême, Switzerland
• U.R.E.O. (Unité de Recherches et d'Etudes sur les Ovni) of La Tour-du-Pin

Gilles Hammer of A.D.R.U.P. provided a report from the CECRU Investigation Commission of Dijon. Jean-Marc Bonay of F.U.N.O. presented the 'Commission Etude des Documents' project, which was apparently poorly received.

Alain Martinez shared an interview with Alain Esterle, conducted on October 18, 1979, during a conference attended by the group VEROVICA.

Perry Petrakis recounted the resolution of a dispute between A.E.S.V. and Jean Miguères.

Jean-Pierre Troadec and René Faudrin of G.R.E.P.O. presented an exclusive slideshow on the Vauclusien contact case of Pierre Monnet. Accompanying this presentation was the distribution of two special issues of 'Vaucluse-Ufologie': issue 1 (110 pages) cataloging Vauclusien UFO observations from 1950-1977, and issue 2 (75 pages) detailing the Pierre Monnet contact with sketches and photos.

David Duquesnoy, President of A.A.M.T., explained his current position regarding ufological groups and the temporary 'rest' period for his association.

Michel Figuet of A.A.M.T. read a letter from Pierre Guérin concerning Dominique Caudron and his views on the phenomenon.

Frantz Crebely of S.V.E.P.S. discussed the specific nature of private groups and ufological congresses.

Sunday, October 28, 1979

Claude Souris of C.E.R.P.I. reported that his group holds investigator seminars for members several times a year.

Technical Presentations

Page 3 details technical aspects discussed. A method for calculating angular heights during investigations was explained, involving a simple apparatus made from a ruler, a plastic tube, and a weighted rod. Albert Romano of VERONICA presented a complementary system for angle calculations, specifically for use during vigils when an unidentified phenomenon is observed.

Claude Souris also described a method for marking observations on maps during investigations or live observations.

Patrick Berlier of C.E.M.O.C.P.I. indicated that trace sample analysis can be easily performed by contacting municipal laboratories, noting the low cost, often free, especially during the off-peak month of December.

Perry Petrakis confirmed that Jean-Louis Brochard is not the CUFOS representative for France, and that Hynek reportedly does not know him at all. This was reportedly written by the CUFOS founder and given to Petrakis.

An observation noted the desirability of CECRU sessions concluding on Sunday afternoons to allow for optional individual interventions.

Notes on Group Participation and Information Sharing

It was noted that the G.I.U. of Belgium and G.T.R.Ovni are no longer considered part of CECRU due to repeated absences.

Nicolas Greslou of C.S.E.R.U. announced that the CECRU correspondence to embassies was sent in December, and members would receive a dossier in June with the dispatched letter and ambassador responses.

Madame Gueudelot, who maintains the 'international observations' file for LDLN, was highlighted. She uses bulletins from ufological associations, but currently only receives UFO INFO (AAMT) and VAUCLUSE-UFOLOGIE (GREPO). It was strongly suggested that all CECRU member associations should send their bulletins to her to help her update her extensive file, which contains hundreds of cases. Her address was provided for this purpose.

Epilogue: G.R.E.P.O. - SO.V.E.P.S.

René Faudrin of G.R.E.P.O. addressed a past incident where his words upon welcoming SOVEPS were misinterpreted. He clarified that his intention was not pejorative and that the situation escalated beyond his control. He stated that there were never any issues between GREPO and SOVEPS, and they had reached an agreement documented in their bulletin 'Vaucluse Ufologie n° 14', which GREPO would respect.

Faudrin explained that his actions were to highlight typical problems encountered in organizing the CECRU session in Avignon. He detailed that SOVEPS, despite being informed and invited, did not provide a written response by the deadline, nor had they been contacted by phone. He noted that other groups like VERONICA, SLUB, and AESV had complied with organizational requirements. Consequently, SOVEPS was not considered a participant for the 6th CECRU Session in Avignon. Faudrin emphasized that while guests should be treated equitably, they must also respect the host's customs. He took sole responsibility for his words and this clarification.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The document highlights the challenges and dynamics within the ufological community, including inter-group relations, organizational logistics, and the sharing of information. There's an emphasis on collaboration, investigation methods, and the importance of maintaining comprehensive case files. The editorial stance appears to be one of promoting organized ufological research and clear communication, while also addressing and resolving inter-group conflicts. The publication seems to serve as a platform for disseminating information about group activities, research findings, and organizational matters within the French ufological scene.