Vaucluse Ufologie - No 17 - Mars 1980

Magazine Overview

Title: VAUCLUSE UFOLOGIE
Issue Date: March 1980
Issue Number: 17
Publisher: GROUPEMENT DE RECHERCHE ET D'ÉTUDE DU PHÉNOMÈNE OVNI (G.R.E.P.O.)
Type: Quarterly Bulletin of Information

Editorial Content and Articles

This issue of "Vaucluse Ufologie" delves into various aspects of ufology, featuring detailed case reports, organizational information, and critical reflections on the field.

Organizational Information

The bulletin is published by the G.R.E.P.O., an association declared under the law of July 1, 1901, and a delegation of "LUMIÈRES DANS LA NUIT." It is also a member of the C.E.C.R.U. The issue lists the composition of the G.R.E.P.O. bureau, including President d'honneur Camille Ferrier, active President René Faudrin, Vice-President Jean Pierre Troadec, and Secretary General Lilyane Troadec. It also lists honorary members and the editorial committee.

Subscription details are provided: 50 Francs for subscription and membership to G.R.E.P.O., 20 Francs for a simple subscription, and 5 Francs per issue. Members receive a membership card and can participate in G.R.E.P.O. activities. Correspondence for the bulletin should be addressed to Jean Pierre Troadec in Lyon.

Critical Reflection on Ufology

An editorial piece by Lilyane Troadec reflects on the current state of ufology, expressing concern about its increasing commercialization and the potential for its degradation. She notes a shift from a purist approach to one influenced by myth, the occult, and the paranormal, driven by younger enthusiasts. Troadec criticizes the tendency for authors to present their theses as absolute truths and suggests that personal biases and psychological profiles influence theories. She advocates for self-awareness and honesty among ufologists, referencing the "Projet MAGONIA" as a potential tool for understanding and avoiding past "human errors."

Case Report: Courthezon Sighting

A detailed investigation report, transmitted by the Luxembourgish Commission for Ufological Studies (C.L.E.U.) and G.P.U.N., documents an observation on August 24, 1978, in Courthezon (Vaucluse). The witness, a 43-year-old police officer, reported seeing a single discoidal object, described as leaf-green or bottle-green, approximately 7 meters in diameter and 5 meters in height, hovering 2-3 meters above the ground. The object emitted a strident whistling sound, and the witness experienced temporary paralysis. The object's underside featured a strong white opaque light shaped like an inverted funnel, with four illuminated hublots on its upper dome. After about 5-6 minutes, the underside light extinguished, and the object departed horizontally towards the horizon. The witness initially hesitated to report the incident due to fear of ridicule. Subsequent site visits revealed dead vines and delayed vegetation growth, though the owner attributed this to climatic conditions. The report concludes that the witness appears to be credible and suggests further investigation is warranted.

Case Report: Gordes Sighting

Another observation report, established on February 17, 1978, details an event on December 28, 1977, in Gordes (Vaucluse). The witness, Madame D., a retired schoolteacher, observed a bright white luminous ball, about 50 cm in diameter, with an irregular halo, moving from the direction of Luberon. It traveled horizontally at approximately 5 km/h in a perfectly straight and horizontal trajectory. The object appeared to have a propeller-like feature at the rear and an iridescent edge. The observation lasted about 40 seconds. Madame D. reported the incident to the gendarmerie on December 30, 1977, prior to the publication of articles about UFO phenomena in the region. The report also mentions another witness, Monsieur Aymé F., who reportedly saw a phenomenon around 7:15 AM while traveling to Cabrières.

Correspondence: Pierre Monnet's Letter

A significant portion of the issue includes a letter from Pierre Monnet, dated January 28, 1980, addressed to the G.R.E.P.O. and its publication "Vaucluse Ufologie." Monnet expresses his strong dissatisfaction with a previous G.R.E.P.O. publication, "CONTACT" (Hors série No 2), which concerned his contact case. He accuses the authors of deliberately fabricating evidence, distorting information, and misinterpreting his statements out of bad faith and intellectual pettiness. Monnet states that it would require a 200-page document to refute all the errors in the publication. He criticizes Madame Troadec's psychological analysis, deeming it inappropriate and driven by vengeance. Monnet concludes by stating that he is severing ties with G.R.E.P.O. due to negative human elements, but wishes them well.

Response to Pierre Monnet

A response to Pierre Monnet's letter is provided, signed by René Faudrin and Jean Pierre Troadec. They assert that their dossier on Monnet's contact case was compiled in good faith and honesty by a heterogeneous team within GREPO. They deny any bad faith, voluntary error, demolition work, dishonesty, or wasted time. They acknowledge that their work is incomplete due to time constraints but state they remain attentive to new developments. They intend to publish Monnet's opinion and their response in their bulletin. They reaffirm their friendship and good wishes to Monnet, acknowledging the enormous task he faces in addressing his readers.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue highlights a tension between rigorous, scientific ufological investigation and the perceived commercialization and sensationalism within the field. The G.R.E.P.O. positions itself as a serious research group, publishing detailed case reports and engaging in critical self-reflection. The editorial stance appears to favor a more grounded, psychological approach to understanding UFO phenomena, while acknowledging the validity of genuine contact experiences. The publication also demonstrates a commitment to transparency by publishing differing viewpoints and responding directly to criticism.

This issue of 'Le Provencal' dated January 7, 1978, features a prominent cover story with the headline 'Comme si la Lune se promenait dans le vallon de Gordes' (As if the Moon were walking in the valley of Gordes), detailing a UFO sighting. The report is based on a testimony from Mme D, a retired schoolteacher residing in Gordes.

The Gordes Sighting

The main article recounts the experience of Mme D, who was awakened at approximately 7:07 AM on Wednesday, December 28, 1977, by a strong light. She observed a round, brilliant object, about 50 cm in diameter, moving very slowly about 30 meters away from her terrace, describing it as if the moon was moving through the valley. Mme D, who has an interest in UFO phenomena, stated that while she doesn't necessarily believe in flying saucers or little green men, she felt there was 'something' that eluded understanding. The account was also attributed to Mme Delorme.

The location, Gordes, is described as a small village of 1500 inhabitants perched on a hill at 280 meters, accessible via the N 100 and D 2 roads. It overlooks the Luberon massif and the Vaucluse plateau.

Gendarmerie Investigation

An inquiry was conducted on Monday, January 2, 1978, by Philippe Crespy and René Faudrin. They first visited the local gendarmerie to obtain the witness's address and gauge their reaction. The chief of the brigade stated that if anything unusual had occurred, they would have seen it from their windows, which face the same valley. He suggested that the phenomenon could have been the remains of a recovered weather balloon, with the triangle part found by the Gordes brigade and the measurement box by the Beaumettes brigade. The gendarmerie did not open a formal inquiry, only taking Mme D's statement. They also considered the possibility of a low-altitude aircraft, which the investigators dismissed due to the impossibility of such a scenario in the area.

Witness Testimony and Corroboration

Mme D, described as a retired schoolteacher in her fifties, married, lives a short distance from the gendarmerie. She reiterated that the event occurred precisely at 7:07 AM, emphasizing the accuracy of her timekeeping. She reported the incident to the gendarmerie two days later, on Thursday, December 30. The article notes that this was before the series of articles on UFOs appeared in 'Le Provencal' from January 2 to 8. Mme D also inquired among acquaintances and learned of other potential sightings.

Mr. Aimé F, a former student of Mme D, reported seeing a strong light on the same day (December 28) around 7:15 AM while traveling to Cabrières d'Avignon. Additionally, a couple, M. and Mme Abel R from Murs, reportedly observed another unusual phenomenon on January 2. Furthermore, M. Jean P, the nephew of Gordes' potter, claimed to have seen a 'splendid moon' on January 6, an observation deemed chronologically impossible given the lunar phases.

Regarding the recovered weather balloon, the gendarmerie indicated it was recovered in early December, predating Mme D's observation on December 28.

Personal Conclusion and Additional Information

René Faudrin, the author, expressed his belief in Mme D's sincerity and the reality of her experience, stating, 'I am certain that she saw something that is unknown to us.'

In supplementary information, Mme D clarified that the light she observed was golden in color and the object was a well-defined ball. She experienced no eye discomfort despite the intensity of the light, which prevented her from seeing the other side of the valley. The phenomenon lasted approximately forty seconds.

Historical Context: Châteauneuf-du-Pape UFO Ordinance

The issue also includes reprints of articles from 'Le Méridional' (October 29, 1954) and 'L'Aurore'/'La Liberté de l'Est' (October 28, 1954) concerning an amusing ordinance by the mayor of Châteauneuf-du-Pape, M. Lucien Jeune. The ordinance humorously prohibited flying saucers and 'flying cigars' from landing or flying over the commune, threatening to impound any such craft and inviting the 'Martians' to a 'vin d'honneur' (toast of honor).

Ufology Organization Reports

Further sections detail proposals and discussions among ufology groups. A report from the GEOS group to GEPAN (Groupe d'Etudes des Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-identifiés) on September 12, 1978, in Toulouse, discusses collaboration between groups and official bodies. Key points include:

• Frequency of Meetings: GEOS suggests meetings every two years to avoid disrupting study programs and financial constraints.
• Selective Participation: They advocate for more selective attendance at meetings, excluding individuals without real responsibility.
• Investigator Training: GEPAN proposed offering investigator training courses to ufology associations, a measure GEOS views positively, especially for improving the quality of investigations.
• Role of Groups for GEPAN: GEOS outlines potential roles for ufology groups, such as detecting observations, conducting initial on-site investigations to determine if GEPAN's intervention is necessary, and providing qualified assessments after training.
• Information Dissemination: GEOS suggests GEPAN should share analyzed observation reports with groups to ensure accurate information is disseminated through various media.
• International Collaboration: Inviting representatives from established foreign ufology groups to GEPAN meetings is proposed to foster international knowledge of French research.

Another section provides a report on the "Journées Ufologiques de Montluçon 80" held on April 11-13, 1980. Organized by Jean GIRAUD, president of Groupe 03100, the event featured presentations from Belgian and Swiss representatives, as well as numerous French ufology groups. Topics included the specificity of UFOs, the relationship between science fiction and UFOs, contactees, the misuse of 'monnerisme' (a term likely related to sensationalism or imitation), the degradation of information, and the epistemology of ufology. The event was described as passionate and engaging.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue highlights a blend of contemporary UFO sightings with historical and organizational aspects of ufology. The editorial stance appears to be one of open-mindedness towards witness testimonies, particularly when corroborated or when official explanations seem insufficient, as seen in the Gordes case. The inclusion of the humorous Châteauneuf-du-Pape ordinance and the detailed discussions among ufology groups suggest a comprehensive approach to the subject, encompassing both public interest and the professionalization of UFO research. The author's personal conclusion in the Gordes case strongly supports the witness's account, indicating a belief in the existence of unexplained phenomena.