255_413270_UFO's_and_Defense_What_Should_we_Prepare_For

7</07'i tl • 498 Manzanita Ct. • Ventura, CA 93001 April 30, 2001 Hi Dan Jon (Cypher) and I look forward to seeing you on Friday at 3:30pm in your office. Jon, you probably recall, is an actor who starred on "Hillstreet Blues" and "Major Dan," among many other TV shows, Broadway (wish you could hear him sing ''The Impossible Dream" which he sang on Broadway in La Mancha), and movies. He's aJso a scholar (and sings opera in four languages), and speaks eloquently about space. We've been married for fifteen years. Since I closed down the Institute for Security and Cooperation in Outer Space a few years ago, which I founded in '83, we've both been searching for our role in promoting the space program. As you know, I was spokesperson for von Braun during the last years of his life. He had me commit to finding the path to open the doors to space ... with his full and unlimited vision. I think I've found a way to do it. We're bringing you a package that will give you the idea. (Don't worry, it won't cost you or NASA a dime.) And we'll only take as much time as you want ... even just a few short minutes as I know how busy you are. But it's going to be worth this trip to hand this to you in person. Also, we'd love to take you (and yours) to lunch or dinner during the week we'll be in DC. Possible? See you Friday. My best, ~~ Carol Rosin 805-641-1999 Cell 805-340-5121 [email protected] PS. The photo was taken at the US Space Foundation where we were keynote speakers. ',/uE5 -­ 1 J>/tt/- 45 ;Pt2-o/vftS£1) / J./f3Re_. 15 11-tc. riu:wCJ-1- Cb.H&-774 /('£pv.e."J[' )lov Wll.t... IV~ '77-fc /£e8-!C6 oyl y~/2.. ro.l!.M~ Ca.JAi~~ A-.tVO ~ L 1:;r Or ec,,,,unz-1lWTCe..s o4 /J5­ ::r ./0)>~Po1<e- I r I .:s fl- llc-1v'~­ /1/0r ~//ei;!Jv,vJ~,-/r- f2e';Pt:>R..T 6'1-r­ ~ ~LIry A-vD ;'oJ3t;./2 N,4T[.); ~ 771£ Wr~MJTs ./7/LL, .:z::­ --rJ-hJK., /l£c..1r-1?-4e/lJJ:>.S. i r TlJ _;>ltt1. /f1c.Tjc L£:.S ~ //VC-t-LlDJ:fP Foe YLJV.€.. ;J'~~~,::/L ~ o.,J f:4ZS DF 1ltr£: ?AFey£; :bOC:..V.H&vT LA.)£ 679t/2 y.ov t 5 A $u;...,H~f2j oY' me l2cra -: f At.LvJ:>t!.J> Ji;N,.J (!A-JL/Htf+",J'.s T/?"77"<?-'/PJ;JA ~-,,.,. l'r5> 7i:Jf'f'O/cTIAM- J:>Dc.u/"'Ic,1.,721770,/ I _:5, o ,,J p e,'7- . j;:;v1 of"?.. -41.'2. r~,::; CbP71u,U-E.;( A-;- M~.x ~ -,-"f ~~ ijOµftL ,41/2.~t>,eT,....£1',/~/~,J~ /c.(>LJ}"f=Qc:., I ~ O,U t! 10.S- f"Le;A ~£= /le~ J;> rJt£ ~~ f!N:.rta. S'Eaii>,,.J Flu>,,._, Pi,2 D , For Reservations Call 1-800-HOTELS I .I -;;::- f!TLu.f~J 77-f/,,Jtc. 0,C l#JMl..e:r5 1 ' 77fC;2_t3-' ,4-t2£ ,f,/JD/Ze --rH'JMfr.> 'Ttl.Jl >(_,,...... r1ffel/&rJ /r/V.D ~ 77MJ,JMe­ .D(V~A-Mf:3...D t:9r / ,/Vyl)vl'l $/;~!>O f-'H'/, tfz>~.,,, 0 ,. ,. 'fH'A'rlk/ ,%;1'7~ "Ft'fl- ~ AI.G- v:5 A-,,JD Ir 7Jrtf!Z£ 1trz£ !vvrf-5-77i> ,J,r­ ~ Ci'J..J,{2.Sf: eA-,_L -r).1,£ /?£r,);:11 $.$A~ A--r q91 q '0 ll(u/ , 2-oz g'i9-f@~­ ~ For Reservations Call 1-800-HOTELS 1 I I I UFOs and Defense: I ·What Should We Prepare For? I I I -An independent report on UFOs written by the French association COMETA. This report details the results of a study by the Institute of I Higher Studies for National Defence.­ I I I I I I I I I This paper originally appeared in a special issue of the magazine VSD published in France in July 1999. I I I I I I I UFOs and Defense I I --The COMETA Report-­ I I I I I I I I I I I I r- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I "Stripping the UFO phenomenon ofits irralional layer" Foreword by Professor Andre Lebeau, Former chairman of the Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES) (French National Center for Space Studies] It is not looked on highly in certain scientific circles to be preoccupied with phenomena that are deemed to come under the heading of popular mythology or that are, at any rate, outside the realm ofscience. Such was the case with stones falling from the sky, which was long considered in our country to be the stuffoffable. However, the day that a meteorite shower over the town ofLaigle permitted a collective and indisputable observation, it entered into the domain of science. One century later NASA, no doubt hastily, elevated these stones to proof ofthe existence of primitive life on Mars. _Phenomena ofthis type pose a preliminary problem for the scientific approach: does a scientific fact exist? • When the phenomenon is a matter ofexperimentation, the criterion to be used is simple~ the reproducibility of the experiment is the touchstone and furnishes the fact that must then be interpreted. But the situation is more difficult when the phenomenon is not open to experimentation, when repeated observation is the only basis on which one can go, as is the case in astronomy and for the most part in geophysics. However, when the fact, albeit rare, is collectively and indisputably visible, it is easy to elevate it to the status ofscientific object. The existence ofeclipses, comets, and novas has been recognized_since ancient times,._even though their interpretation long contained - and sometimes still contains - a religious dimension. Thus collective and simultaneous observation plays the same role as the reproducibility ofexperiments. This is not true when the event is not only rare but discrete as well, and when there is a very small amount ofevidence at each occurrence, which opens the door to various suspicions. Unidentified flying objects, or UFOs, fall into this category. One runs up against additional difficulties in the case of UFOs, firstly that of how many human activities, especially since the beginning of the space age, have generated atmospheric phenomena the origin ofwhich is not immediately ascertainable by those who observe them. In any case, UFOs, the origin ofwhich cannot be attributed to either a human source or a natural mechanism that has been identified by science, are mixed in with a background noise the origin ofwhich, although difficult to identify, is not at all mysterious. Moreover, and above all, the existence ofunexplained manifestations, both in the atmosphere and occasionally on the surface of the earth, inevitably gives rise to a fundamental question: are we alone in the universe? Could some ofthese phenomena be the work ofextraterrestrial beings? This question gives the UFO issue a sociological, media-related, and even religious dimension in a domain that is not that ofscience and scientific methods. And it is the very existence ofthis dimension that elicits reactions of rejection in the scientific community. However, a dispassionate examination of the situation should lead those who believe in the value ofscientific method to consider that the very existence ofa strong irrational environment is another reason to apply the precepts of this method to the issue ofUFOs. COMET A has tried its luck at this in the report that it is presenting, supported, namely, by the work performed by GEPAN, which later became SEPRA. The significant place granted to sightings, to testimonies, and to the analysis ofcases that have been explained shows the major role played here by the establishment offacts. But we also find in this I document a reflection on the hypothesis ofextraterrestrial intelligence and of the importance that it could have if studies came together to confirrn it. I This report is useful in that it contributes toward stripping the phenomenon of UFOs of its irrational layer. When aJI is said and done, the question ofdetennining whether or not those who created this report believe in the exi~tence ofextraterrestrial visitors, concealed I in a variety ofphenomena that are surprising in appearance but commonplace with respect to their cause, is of no real importance. What a scienti?t believes is important in the conducting of his research because this is what motivates and drives him. But his beliefis I not important to the results of his research nor does it have any effect on those results if he is rigorous. Table of Contents PREFACE FOREWORD INTRODUCTION PART l FACTS AND TESTIMONIES Chapter 1 Testimonies ofFrench Pilots Chapter 2 Aeronautical Cases Throughout the World Chapter 3 Sightings from the Ground Chapter 4 Close Encounters in France Chapter 5 Counterexamples of Phenomena That Have Been Explained PART 2 THE EXTENT OF OUR KNOWLEDGE Chapter 6 Organization ofthe Research in France Page 27 Chapter 7 Methods and Results ofGEP AN/SEPRA Chapter 8 UFOs: Hypotheses, Modeling Attempts Chapter 9 Organization ofthe Research Abroad PART3 UFOs AND DEFENSE Chapter 10 Strategic Planning Chapter 11 Aeronautical Implications Chapter 12 Scientific and Technical Implications Chapter 13 Political and Religious Implications Chapter 14 Media Implications CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDICES Appendix 1 Radar Detection in France Appendix 2 Astronomers' Sightings Page 74 Appendix 3 Life in the Universe Appendix 4 Colonization ofSpace Appendix S The Roswell Affair - Disinforrnation I· I .. Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 I .· :· Page 9 Page 12 Page 17 Page 20 ' I Page 24 i Page 31 I Page 35 Page 42 I Page 55 Page 59 I Page 62 Page 64 Page 69 I Page 71 I Page 74 I Page 75 Page 75 Page 77 I Appendix 6 The Long History of the UFO Phenomenon - Elements ofa I I I , Chronology Page 80 Appendix 7 Reflections on Various Psychological, Sociological, I and Political Aspects ofthe UFO Phenomenon Page 82 I REFERENCES Page 87 GLOSSARY Page 90 I The photo section from pages 43 to 50, as well as pages 2 and 91, were not part of the initial report. I Publication of: [G.S. Presse Communication logo] 79-83, rue Baudin, 92309 Levallois-Perret Cedex.01 55 21 00 50, fax: 01 55 21 00 55. Societe anonyme with FF 250,000 in capital, in business I for 99 years. Sole Chief Executive Officer: Daniel Denis. Publication Director: Daniel I Denis. Art Director: Richard Y otis. Editorial Assistant: Jacques Peron. Illustrations and Technical Consulting: Bernard Thouanel. Editorial Dept. 01 55 21 00 50. E-mail: [email protected]. Public Relations Agent: Image7/Isabelle de Segonzac 01 44 15 93 94. Sales and restocking: MEP, 01 42 56 12 26, I UFOs AND DEFENSE What should we prepare for? COtviETA, an association governed by the Law ofJuly 1, 1901. I All reproduction, in whole or in part, translation, and adaptation rights reserved for all countries. Copyright 1999. I terminal ELL. Photoengraving: Key Graphic. Printing: Berger Levrault, 34, avenue du Roule, 92220 Neuily-sur-Seine. Joint Appeals Board No.: 59521. ISSN 1278-916 X. I Copyright deposit: July 1999. © G.S. Presse Communication. The editorial department is not responsible for the loss of or damage to texts or photos that are sent to it for consideration. Reproduction in whole or in part ofany material published in the magazine is prohibited. I Cover: I Photo taken on September 4, 1971, directly over the Tilaran range in Central America by an airplane from the National Geographic Institute ofCosta Rica (Bernard Thouanel collection). I , , I I I I "Concrete problems are raised that call for a response in terms ofaction" by General Bernard Norlain, I Former director of the lnstitut des Hautes Etudes de Defense Nation ale (Institute for Advanced National Defense Studies I (IBEDN)] When General Letty visited me in March I995 at my office at IHEDN to explain to me his project for creating a new committee for study of UFOs, I assured him ofmy interest and referred him to the management ofthe IHEDN Auditors Association (AA), which • I gave him its support. Knowing that some twenty years earlier the AA had produced and published a preliminary report on the subject in its bulletin, it was but time to update it. Denis Letty seemed to me to be the perfect one to spearhead this task~ one month I earlier, in February, he had organized, within the framework ofthe Ecole de l' Air [Air Force Academy] Alumni Association, a conference on unidentified aerospace phenomena. Before a large public, some ofour comrades, former pilots, spontaneously related their I encounters with UFOs. The person in charge ofstudying these phenomena at the CNES then presented his results, and a well-known astronomer described a scientifically acceptable version ofthe extraterrestrial hypothesis. I The fields ofknowledge affected by the UFO phenomenon are very diverse, and General Letty was able to find within the AA, but on the outside as well, numerous I experts whose efforts h~ coordinated. The list of high-level civilian and military degrees ofthe members ofhis committee is very impressive: officers, engineers, and specialists in physics, life sciences, and social sciences were able to deal with all aspects ofthe study. I This is not a purely academic study. Concrete problems are raised, and not only for civilian and military pilots, that call for a response in tenns ofaction. The makeup of I COMETA [Committee for In-Depth Studies], which is the name ofthe committee, took these into account. Almost all ofits members have, or had during the course oftheir careers, important responsibilities in defense, industry, teaching, research or various I central administrations. I express the wish that the recommendations ofCOMETA, which are inspired by good I sense, will be examined and implemented by the authorities ofour country. The first report of the AA favored the creation within CNES of the only civilian government agency known in the world dedicated to the study ofUFOs. May this new report, which is much more in-depth, give new impetus to our national efforts and to indispensable international cooperation. IHEDN will then have well served the nation and, perhaps, humanity. "Consider all oftile hypotheses" I I I , I by Denis Letty, Air Force General, 2nd Section, AA (35) I The accumulation ofwell-documented sightings made by credible witnesses forces us to consider from now on all of the hypotheses regarding the origin ofunidentifiedflying objects, or UFOs, and the extraterrestrial hypothesis, in particular. UFOs are now a part I ofour media environment; the films, television broadcasts, books, advertisements, etc., dealing with UFOs amply demonstrate this. Although no characterized threat has been perceived to date in France, it seemed I necessary to the former auditors of the Institut des Hautes Etudes de Defense Nationale (IHEDN) to take stock ofthe subject. Along with qualified experts from extremely varied backgrounds, they are grouped together to forrn a private in-depth fact-finding committee, which was christened COMETA. I This committee was transformed into a COMETA association, which I chair. I would I like to thank General Bernard Norlain, former director ofIHEDN, and Mr. Andre Lebeau, former chairman ofthe Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales, without whom COMETA would not have been born. I In addition, I wish to acknowledge the various people who agreed to give their testimony or to contribute to this study, and namely: Jean-Jacques Velasco, Head ofSEPRA at CNES, Fran~ois Louange, ChiefExecutive Officer ofFlex.image, , Jean-Charles Duboc, Jean-Pierre Fartek, Rene Giraud, civilian and military I pilots, Edmond Campagnac, former technical director ofAir France at Antananarivo, Michel Perrier, Squadron Commander, Gendannerie Nationale I M. Soun, ofthe Direction Generale de !'Aviation Civile [Civil Aviation Agency] Joseph Domange, Air Force General, Auditors Association delegate general. I I must also thank the commander ofthe Afr Force Air Operations Command Center for its participation during the investigation into flight AF 3532 on January 28, 1994. I Among the members ofCOMETA who spared no effort for close to three years, it is possible for me to list: Michel Algrin, State Doctor ofPolitical Science, attorney-at-law, AA (35), (1) I Pierre Bescond, Weapons Engineer General, 2nd Section, AA (48), Denis Blancher, Chief of Police, Police Nationale, Ministry ofthe Interior, Jean Dunglas, Doctor of Engineering (Ret.), in Water and Foredtry Management AR I (48) Bruno Le Moine, Air Force General, 2nd Section, AA (41 ), Fran~oise Lepine, Fondation pour Jes Etudes de Defense [Foundation for Defense I Studies], AA (33), Christian Marchal, Chief Mining Engineer, Research Director at ONERA I (National Aerospace Study and Research Office), Marc Merlo, Admiral, 2nd Section, AA (35), Alain Orszag, Doctor ofPhysical Sciences, Weapons Engineer General, 2nd Section. I I ,~ (/): AA or AR xx: auditor of national or regional promotion no. xx. I INTRODUCTION I In 1976, a committee ofthe Institut des Hautes Etudes de Defense Nationale (IHEDN) chaired by General Blanchard1 ofthe Gendarmerie Nationale1 opened the unidentified flying objects file. The objective: to make proposals for organizing research and the collection ofdata on these phenomena. The-goal was achieved, because the I recommendations ofthis cornm.ittee were followed b,1 the creation of the Groupe d'Etude des Phenomenes Aerospatiaux Non Identifies (GEPAN) [Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena Study Group], the precursor to the current Service d'Expertise des I Phenomenes de Rentree Atmospherique (SEPRA) [Atmospheric Reentry Phenomena Consulting Department], a division of the Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES), 1. which is in charge ofthis file. Twenty years later, it seemed useful to us to take stock once again ofthe knowledge regarding these sightings, which are becoming ofgreater and greater interest to a large public that is often convinced ofthe extraterrestrial origin of UFOs. Just look at the number offilms or television broadcasts on this subject. I For the sake ofconvenience with respect to language, we will use the term UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) generally1 instead ofthe more scientific term UAP I (Unidentified Aerospace Phenomenon). Without a doubt, the phenomenon remains and the number ofsightings, which are completely unexplained despite the abundance and quality ofdata, is growing throughout I the world. On the ground, some sightings, like the Trans-en-Provence sighting in 1981, have been the subject ofin-depth studies proving that something did in fact land on the ground and parked there. Civilian and military pilots have provided gripping visual I testimonies, often corroborated by radar recordings, as was the case recently in France. In view ofthe lack ofirrefutable proofregarding the origin of these phenomena, the need for understanding persists. e We will devote the first part ofthis report to several particularly remarkable French and foreign cases. In the second part, after having recalled the current organization of the research on I these phenomena in France and abroad, we will evaluate the work being done by scientists worldwide who are interested in UFOs and are proposing, as we will see, partial explanations that are based on known laws ofphysics. I Some ofthese (propulsion systems, non lethal weapons, etc.) could become realities in the short, medium and long term. We will review the principal global explanations proposed, focusing on those that are in keeping with the current scientific data, which range from secret weapons to - extraterrestrial manifestations. The UFO phenomenon involves defense in the broad sense and calls for a certain number of measures, which we will examine in the last part: - [providing] civilian and military pilots with sufficient information to teach them an adapted conduct when faced with these phenomena and, more generally, [providing] the public and decision-makers with information, - developing the actions ofSEPRA and promoting supplemental scientific monitoring, or even research, actions, - considering the strategic, political, and religious consequences ofa possible confirmation ofthe extraterrestrial hypothesis, the bizarre connotation of which it is advisable to eliminate here and now. PART I Facts and Testimonies I Before going further, it seems worthwhile to us to present several facts and testimonies I that in themselves justify the interest ofthe in-depth study that we are going to develop below: - three testimonies ofFrench civilian and military pilots who encountered UFOs in flight, - five major aeronautical cases in the world, I - three sightings frQm the ground, - four cases ofclose encounters in France. I These few examples are among the hundreds ofremarkable, that is to say credible and well-documented, cases observed around the world in recent decades. None ofthese cases has been explained, whereas the majority ohimes the investigations enable the origin I ofthe phenomena observed by the witnesses to be determined; we will give two significant examples of this. I Chapter 1 - Testimonies of French Pilots Three French pilots who encountered UFOs in flight came to testify before the committee. Their testimonies are all the more interesting because they can be eva1uated I better than other aerial phenomena since they pertain to the aeronautic world. I 1.1 M. Giraud, Mirage IV pilot (March 7, 1977). I The sequence of events ofthis incident was reconstructed from radio exchanges between the pilot and the controller, which are routinely recorded and kept for a specific period oftime in accordance with the procedure in force at all control centers. The I incident occurred on March 7, 1977, at around 2100 hours local time during the Dijon flyover when the Mirage IV was returning, the automatic pilot engaged, to Luxeuil after a I night mission. [The aircraft was] at an altitude of9600 m and flying at a speed of"Mach 0.9." The flight conditions were very good. The pilot (P), Herve Giraud, and his navigator (N) observed a very bright glow at "3 o'clock" (time code) from their aircraft, I at the same altitude, coming on a collision course and approaching very rapidly. We will designate it "assailant" (A1) in the rest of the account. P queried the Contrexeville military radar station that controlled them to ask whether they had a radar contact on the I aircraft coming towards them. In fact, P and N thought that it was an air defense interceptor, as is currently being used, that was seeking to intercept their aircraft to then identify it with its identification beacon. I The radar controller (C), who did not have a corresponding radar contact on his scope, gave a negative response and asked the pilots to check their oxygen. This request on the part ofthe controller is a standard emergency procedure; it shows that the controller is so I I I ~ surprised by the crew's question that he suspects an oxygen problem capable ofcausing a "hallucination." I "Assailant A I" maintained its course towards the Mirage IV. P initiated a bank to the right toward A 1, a bank which he was forced to keep tightening (3 to 4 g) in order to try to maintain visual contact on A I and to keep it from positioning itself to the rear. Despite I this maneuver, A I moved behind the Mirage IV at an estimated distance of 1500 m. At this point P reversed his bank to regain visual contact on A 1 . He saw the glow move away to "11 o'clock." He resumed course to Luxeuil. But 45 seconds after he resumed I course to Luxeuil, feeling like he was being "watched" according to his own words, P told N, "you wait and see, it's going to come back." And in fact, an identical glow, which we will call A2, appeared at "3 o'clock." I P then initiated a very tight bank (6.5 g) to disengage his aircraft from what he now considered to be a real threat. The glow followed the Mirage !Y's maneuver in order to position itselfto the rear at an estimated distance of2000 m. P reversed, as before, and I ­ once again saw the glow disappear under the same conditions. C still did not have a radar . ' contact on "assailant A2." P and N continued their flight and returned nonnally to the Luxeuil base. I Those are the facts. Two points should be emphasized: :!. - only a combat aircraft could have had performance comparable to that of A 1 and A2 (speed, maneuverability). In this case, C would have had a radar contact on this aircraft, I especially at that altitude, a contact that he would have seen all the better since there was no other traffic in the vicinity ofthe Mirage lY. • - given the apparent maneuvers of Al and A2, regardless ofwhether or not they were I the same craft, their speed could only be supersonic, which, in the case ofcombat aircraft, would be manifested on the ground by a very loud sonic boom due to the phenomenon of the focusing of the shock wave generated by the bank. Th.is would have been noticed in I the surrounding area, especially since it was nighttime. But no sound was heard in the region. I 1.2 Testimony ofa Fighter Pilot (March 3, 1976) I Since this pilot (P) wanted to preserve his anonymity, the following lines are extracted from the written deposition that he wished to send to us (he revealed his name subsequently~ he is Colonel Claude Bose). On March 3, 1976, P, then a student pilot at I the Combat Flight School at Tours, was making a solo night flight in a T-33 training aircraft. The mission consisted of navigating at an altitude of6000 m following a Rennes­ Nantes-Poitiers itinerary, then landing at Tours. Several aircraft were following the same I itinerary at 5-minute intervals. The night was dark but cloudless, and the towns could be detected very clearly at the flight altitude in question. Visibility was greater than 100 km. While he was flying stabilized at an altitude of6000 m, at a speed of460 km/h, P first saw I straight ahead, very far off in the distance (at the detection limit oflights on the ground) what he at first thought was the launching ofa green signaling flare. In 1 to 2 seconds, this flare exceeded the altitude ofhis aircraft by 1500 m and seemed I to level offin space before descending in his direction. It approached at a dizzying speed on a collision course with the aircraft and filled the entire front windshield of the cockpit. Th.inking that impact was inevitable, P let go of the joystick and crossed his arms in front I of his face in a reflex protection gesture. The aircraft was completely enveloped in a very bright and phosphorescent green light. P saw a sphere (S) that avoided his aircraft at the I I I r I very last moment and passed over his right wing grazing it, all within a fraction ofa second. P retained the following memory ofthis incident: - S was not very large ( l to 2 m in diameter), I - S was extended by a tail, which was comparable to that on a comet, that was also a fluorescent green color, - the center ofS consisted ofa very bright white light (magnesium-fire type), - the sighting lasted a total ofless than 5 seconds. P, who was very shocked by this phenomenon, informed the radar controller (-) I !I ensuring the control of the mission on the ground; the controller had not detected anything on his radar scope. Upon return, two other pilots who had followed the same itinerary as P stated that they had seen the phenomenon, but from a distance. I 1.3 Air France Flight AF 3532 (January 28, 1994) Jean-Charles Duboc (P), captain ofAir France flight AF 3532, was assisted by Copilot Valerie Chauffour (CP) in making the Nice-London connection on January 28, 1994. At I 1314 hours, while they were cruising at an altitude of 11,900 m in the vicinity of I Coulommiers in Seine-et-Mame [Department] under excellent meteorological conditions, the chief steward, who was present in the cockpit at the time, pointed out a phenomenon that appeared to him to be a weather balloon. His sighting was immediately confinned by I the copilot. P, who in tum saw it, first thought that it was an aircraft banking at a 45° angle. Very quickly, however, all three agreed that what they were seeing did not resemble anything that they knew of The excellent visibility and the presence of altocumulus clouds permitted P to estimate that the phenomenon was at an altitude of l 0,500 m and at a distance ofapproximately 50 km. Taking into account its apparent I diameter, they deduced that the craft was large. They were struck by the changes in the I shape ofthe craft, which first appeared in the form ofa brown bell before transforrning into a chestnut brown lens shape, then disappearing almost instantaneously on the left side ofthe aircraft, as ifit had suddenly become invisible. P reported to the Reims Air I Navigation Control Center, which had no information on any mobile air presence in the vicinity. However, following the existing procedure, Reims informed the Tavemy Air Defense Operations Center (CODA) ofthe sighting made by the crew and asked P to I follow the "Airmiss" procedure upon landing. CODA did in fact record a radar track initiated by the Cinq-Mars-la-Pile control center at the same time that corresponded in location and time to the phenomenon observed. I This radar track, which was recorded for 50 seconds, did cross the trajectory offlight AF 3532 and did not correspond to any flight plan filed. It should be noted that the phenomenon disappeared from the view ofthe crew and the radar scopes at the same I instant. The investigations conducted by CODA enabled both the hypothesis ofa weather balloon to be ruled out and the precise crossing distance ofthe two trajectories to be determined, consequently bringing the approximate length ofthe craft to 250 min length. I It should be noted that the Northern Regional Air Navigation Center (CRNA), which handles 3000 movements per day, has investigated only three cases over the last seven years, one ofwhich was that offlight AF 3532. I Chapter 2 - Aeronautic Cases Throughout the World I I ., I It is appropriate to specify that those cases that have been sighted from aircraft are considered to be aeronautic cases. This chapter describes five significant cases that occurred in different parts of the world and which were the subject ofan investigation by I the authorities ofthe countries in question. In four cases, the objects were detected both visually and by radar. In the fifth case, they were observed by a number ofindependent ., witnesses. 2.1 Lakenheath (United Kingdom) (August 13-14, 1956) I The joint USAF - U.S. Air Force - and RAF [Royal Air Force] military bases of Lakenheath and Bentwaters are located 30 km northeast ofCambridge with respect to the I first and near the coast to the east ofthis city with respect to the second. Unknown aerial I " objects followed by their radars during the night ofAugust 13 to 14, 1956, were judged ··11nide111ified'' by the report published in 1969 by the Condon Commission tasked with ,:, evaluating the research ofthe U.S. Air Force on UFOs (cf Chapter 9). In September 1971, the magazine Astronautics andAeronautics published a study of the case by Thayer, the radar expert on the Condon Commission, which was based in part on a study presented in 1969 by Professor MacDonald, an atmospheric physicist. For the record, we ~ point out that on several occasions, and namely in 1976, Philippe Klass, editor ofthe journal Aviation Week and Space Technology, attempted to criticize this work and to I reduce the case to a series of ordinary events (meteorites, radar propagation anomalies, etc.). The incidents began at the Bentwaters base, preceded, between 2100 and 2200 hours, by unusual sightings ofthe approach control radar [center], which we will not go I into in further detail. They took place as follows: - At 2255 hours, the radar detected an unidentified object moving east to west passing over the base, always almost into the wind at an apparent speed of2000 to 4000 miles per I hour (mph), or 3200 to 6400 km/h. No sonic boom was mentioned. The personnel ofthe Bentwaters control tower said they saw a bright light flying over the ground from east to west "at an incredible speed" at an altitude ofapproximately 1200 m. At the same time, I the pilot ofa military transport plane flying over Bentwaters at an altitude of 1200 m stated that a bright light passed under his plane tearing east to west "at an incredible speed. " The two visual sightings confirmed the radar detection. I. - The Bentwaters radar operator reported these concurring radar and visual sightings to the shift supervisor at the Lakenheath [air] traffic radar control center, an American noncommissioned officer to whom we are indebted for a quite detailed report ofthese I sightings and those that follow. The report, which was sent to the Condon Commission in 1968 by the then retired NCO, is coherent and does not contradict the documents in the USAF [Project] Blue Book file except in a few minor points; among these documents, the I regulation telex sent by Lakenheath to the Blue Book team on the day ofthe incident and the report forwarded two weeks later to that same team by American Captain Holt, an intelligence officer at Bentwaters. I - The shift supervisor at the Lakenheath base alerted his radar operators. One ofthem detected a stationary object approximately 40 km southwest ofthe base, almost in the axis of the trajectory of the supersonic object seen at 2255 hours. The shift supervisor called I the Lakenheath approach radar [center], which confirmed the sighting. The radar technicians at the air traffic control center suddenly saw the object immediately go from immobility to a speed of600 to 950 km/h. The shift supervisor notified the base I commander. ·I I I The object changed direction several times, describing line segments ranging from 13 to I 30 km, separated by abrupt stops for 3 to 6 minutes; the speed always went from a value I ofzero to a value of some 950 km/h without any transition. Visual sightings were made from the ground and confirmed the high speed and astounding accelerations. The regulation telex sent by Lakenheath concluded: ''The.fact I that radar and ground visual observations were made on its rapid acceleration and abntpt stop certainly lend credence to the report." - After 30 to 45 minutes, the RAF sent a night fighter, a Venom two-seater, in pursuit I ofthe object. The Lakenheath air traffic radar control center guided it in the direction of the object 1 0 km east ofthe center. The pilot acquired the target visually and on radar, then lost it. The center then directed the plane 16 km to the east ofLakenheath; the pilot I again acquired the target and said, "my machine guns are locked onto him. " A short time afterward, he once again lost his target; but the target was followed by the radar operators at the center. They informed the pilot that the object had made a rapid movement to position itself behind him and was following him at a short distance. The pilot confirmed (this]. Watched by the radar technicians, the pilot tried every maneuver for about I0 I minutes in order to move back behind the object (steep climbs, dives, sustained turns), but he didn't succeed: the UFO followed him at a constant distance according to the ground radar stations. Finally, low on fuel, he returned to base, asking that someone tell him I whether the object continued to follow him. The UFO did, in fact, follow him for a short distance, then came to a standstill. The radar technicians then saw the object make several short moves, then leave in a northerly direction at about 950 km/h and disappear from I radar range at 0330 hours. - A Venom sent to replace the first had to quickly return to base due to mechanical problems before having been able to establish contact with the object. I Thayer concluded his article in the journal Astronautics and Aeronautics in this manner: I "taking into consideration the high credibility ofinformation and cohesiveness and continuity ofaccount. combined with a high degree of'strangeness', it is also certainly one ofthe most disturbing UFO incidents known today." I 2.2 The RB-47 Aircraft in the United States (July 17, 1957) I This case, which appears as "unidentified" in the Condon report, has been cited and studied extensively for 40 years. Physicist James MacDonald published the results of his investigation in 1971 in the journal Astronautics and Aeronautics. Phillip Klass, the I aforementioned journalist, then endeavored in 1976 to trivialize the facts, which was highly contestable from the outset. The bulk ofthis interpretation was refuted at the end of 1997, upon completion ofan in-depth investigation contained in a memorandum from I the aerospace technology researcher Brad Sparks. We will summarize here the important sequences of events ofthe case, which show a luminous unidentified flying object detected at night not only by sight and on radar, but I also by pulsed microwave emissions coming from its direction: The RB-4 7 was a bomber the bomb bays ofwhich had been converted to hold three I officers each equipped with means enabling emissions from ground radar~ to be detected and their azimuth direction, but not their distance or the nature ofthe signals, to be specified. In the south central region of the United States, where the aircraft was making a training flight that day, numerous radar stations were emitting signals the frequencies of which were close to 3000 MHz and the pulses ofwhich lasted 1 microsecond and I I I occurred every 600 microseconds. The radar~ scanned the horizon four times per minute. Three other officers (pilot, copilot, navigator) were in the cockpit and, as a result, I could themselves see out ofthe aircraft. The six officers were questioned by MacDonald in 1969. They related that: - The first incident took place above Mississippi, probably at around 09302 (0330 local 1· time}, when the aircraft, going back to the north from the GulfofMexico, was approaching the coast a little to the east ofthe Mississippi delta, flying at Mach 0. 75. Captain MacClure detected on his screen a blip corresponding to a pulsed microwave I source located behind and to the right ofthe RB-47 (at "S o'clock") that rapidly passed the aircraft and turned around it, departing again on its left in the other direction (between "6 o'clock and 9 o'clock"). The source was therefore airborne and supersonic. MacClure 1· noted the characteristics ofthe signal: they were those ofthe aforementioned ground radar stations, with the exception ofthe length ofthe pulses, which were 2 microseconds. He did not report this incident immediately, thinking that it was perhaps·a malfunction ofthe I electronics. As Klass writes, at the time there were no supersonic aircraft either in the United States or in the USSR large enough to transport a radar, the signal from which possessed the characteristics that were observed. - The following incident occurred at 101OZ in Louisiana, when Commander Chase, pilot, and Captain MacCoyd, copilot, saw an intense bluish-white light aim at the aircraft from " 11 o'clock," then jump from their left to their right and disappear while it was at "2 o'clock." Klass showed that this object was perhaps a meteorite the trajectory of which caused an optical illusion, but, at the time, Chase and MacCoyd wondered whether it wasn't a UFO. Hearing them, MacClure remembered his prior detection and looked for a signal ofthe same type. - He found this signal at 10302, which was identical to the previous one and, perhaps by coincidence, came from "2 o'clock." This signal was confirmed by Captain 1· Provenzano, whose detector was itself also able to operate at around 3000 MHz. It could not have been the signal from a fixed radar, because its ''2 o' clock" direction remained unchanged when the aircraft followed its route to the west for several minutes. The I aircraft entered Texas, then came within range of the "Utah" radar [center] located near Dallas. The crew reported to Utah, which detected both the aircraft and an object maintaining a constant distance of 18 km from it. I - At 10392, still in Texas, Commander Chase perceived a large red light, which he estimated was moving 1500 m below the aircraft at approximately "2 o'clock." The aircraft was flying at an altitude of 10,500 m, and the weather was perfectly clear. t Although the commander was not able to determine either the shape or the size ofthe object, he had the distinct impression that the light was emanating from the top of the object. I At 10402, he received authorization to pursue this object and notified Utah. He slowed down, then accelerated; Utah informed him that the object was mirroring his movements, all the while maintaining a constant distance of 18 km. I - At 10422, Chase accelerated and saw the red object tum to the right in the direction ofDallas; this was confirmed by MacClure. - At around 10502, a little to the west ofDallas, the object stopped and simultaneously I disappeared from the view of the radar(~) (Utah and the onboard radar that had just detected the object when the RB-47 had approached it) and from MacClure's screen (the disappearance ofan object from a radar screen is less surprising nowadays; it calls to mind I the active stealth technologies currently in development ifnot in operation). The aircraft then banked to the left. MacClure picked up a signal that was perhaps the one from Utah. I I I I Visual and radar contact were regained. At 10522, Chase saw the object drop to around 4500 m. He had the RB-47 make a dive from 10,500 to 6000 m. The object then disappeared from his view, from the Utah radar, and from MacClure' s screen simultaneously. - At 10572, still near Dallas, the object reappeared on MacClure's screen, and I Utah indicated that it had prepared a "CIRVIS" (Communications Instructions for Reporting Vital Intelligence Sightings) report, a secret urgent radio report sent to the Air Defense Command, which is mandatory in the event ofa sighting by the Air Force of an unidentified aerial object. At 1058Z, the pilot regained visual contact at ''2 o'clock." A few minutes later, seeing his fuel reserves drop, he decided to return and headed roughly I north toward Oklahoma City. The object then positioned itself behind the aircraft at a distance of 18 km, as reported by Utah, which tried to send fighter jets in pursuit ofthe unknown [object]. The object, flowing lower than the RB-47 and behind it, could not be seen from the cockpit, but it was detected on MacClure' s screen until Oklahoma City, well outside the range ofthe Utah radar. Then it suddenly disappeared from the screen at I 11402. I 2.3 Tehran (September 18 to 19, 1976) I This incident took place during the night of September 18 to 19, 1976. Different newspapers worldwide reported it more or less accurately: for example, France-Soir in the September 21st issue. An American citizen took laborious steps with the U.S. I authorities to obtain a report, invoking the freedom of information act. He finally obtained it from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). Other U.S. documents have been obtained I since then. Interviews with generals and the Iranian air [traffic] controller involved in this affair enabled the DIA report to be confirmed and supplemented a bit, namely with the mention I, ofproper names. The following summary resulted from a reading ofthe all the information: - At around 11:00 p.m. on September 18, the Tehran airport control tower received I several calls reporting a strange immobile luminous object in the sky above the Shemiran residential district in the northern part ofthe capital. The person in charge ofthe night shift, Hossain Perouzi, went out to look at the object with binoculars. He testified that he I saw a rectangle, probably corresponding to a cylindrical object, the ends ofwhich pulsed bluish-white lights. In the middle ofthe object, a small red light described a circle. Perouzi reported this strange sighting to the Imperial Air Force Command, which alerted I General Youssefi, the third in command ofthis air force. He went out on his balcony and saw an object similar to a star, but much bigger and brighter~ he ordered a Phantom F-4 reaction aircraft, the mission ofwhich he directed through Perouzi as intermediary. When the F-4 came to 45 km from the object, its flight instruments and all its means of communication (radio and intercom) suddenly stopped working. The pilot aborted the I interception and headed for his base. The crew then regained use oftheir instruments and means of communication. - A second F-4 was sent by General Youssefi. The UFO's echo on its screen was I similar to that of a Boeing 707. The F-4 approached the UFO at a relative speed of280 km/h. When it came to 45 km from it, the UFO accelerated and maintained a constant distance of45 km from the F-4. The crew was not able to determine the size ofthe object I I I because it shone so intensely. Its brightness came from lights arranged in a rectangle, changing rapidly from glue to green, to red, and to orange. - Suddenly a bright object with an apparent diameter one half or one third of that ofthe I moon exited the UFO and headed rapidly for the F-4. The pilot tried to shoot a Sidewinder missile at the object, but at the same instant his fire control console and his I means ofcommunication (radio and intercom) became inoperable. He promptly initiated a bank and a dive, but the object changed direction and pursued the aircraft at a distance of approximately 6 km. Finally, the object moved inside the F-4's bank and departed in order I to reenter the UFO from which it had exited. - A short time afterwards, an object again exited the UFO and rapidly headed straight down to the ground. The F-4 crew waited to see it explode, but the object seemed to I touch down gently and shine a very bright light over an area 2 to 3 km in diameter. The crew, momentarily blinded, orbited long enough to recover their night vision before landing at the Tehran airfield. It noted that it lost communications (radio and intercom) I whenever their aircraft crossed a certain zone. It should be pointed out that a civilian aircraft also lost communications when it crossed that zone. The next day, the crew was taken by helicopter to the place where the object had apparently landed, a dried up lake, I· but it didn't find any trace [of the object]. An attached note from DIA was just as astonishing as the report itself; it indicated that the information had been confirmed-by other sources and ended with this assessment: I "An outstanding report. This case is a classic which meets all the criteria necessary for a valid study ofthe UFO phenomenon. " !!:. The obiect was seen by multiple witnesses from different locations ... , !!.:. The credibility ofmany ofthe witnesses was high (an Air Force General, qualified aircrews, and I experienced radar operators), s Visual sightings were confirmed br radar, 4.. Similar electromagnetic effects (EME) were reported by three separate aircraft, I ~ There were physiological effects on some crew members (i.e. loss of night vision due to the brightness o[the obiect), .f An inordinate amount ofmaneuverability was displayedby the UFOs." ·1 The attempt by KJass to trivialize this case shows how solid it is. 2.4 Russia (March 21, 1990) I This case took place at night in the Pereslavl-Zalesski region east ofMoscow. It was reported in an article by Aviation General Igor Maltsev, Air Defense Forces commander, I which appeared in the newspaper Rabochaya Tribzma ("Workers' Tribune") on April 19, 1990, entitled "UFOs on Air Defense Radars" (cf the book by Marie Galbraith referenced in Chapter 9. 1 ). ,I The article mentions the dispatch ofcombat aircraft on a mission to intercept the UFOs detected. General Maltsev, who summarized over one hundred visual sightings coHected by unit commanders, stated: I "I am not a specialist in UFOs, and therefore I can only correlate the data and express mv own supposition. According to the evidence o[these eyewitnesses, the UFO is a disk with a diameter from JOO to 200 meters /320 to 650 (eets/. Two pulsating lights were positioned on its sides ... Moreover, the ·1 object rotated around its axis and performed an 'S-turn' flight both in the vertical and horitontal planes. Next the UFO hovered above the ground and then flew with a speed exceeding that ofthe modern iet fighter bv two or three times .. The obiects flew at altitudes ranging from JOO to 7000 m. (300 to 24,000 feet/. The movement o[the UFOs was not accompanied by sound o(anr kind and was I distinguished by its startling maneuverability. It seemed the UFOs were completelv devoid o[inertia. In other words, they had somehow 'come to terms' with gravity. At the present time, terrestrial I I machines could hardh· have such capabilities. " I 2.5 San Carlos de Bariloche (July 31, 1995) I Source SEPRA Aerolineas Argentinas flight AR 674, a Boeing 727 en route from Buenos Aires, was 140 km from San Carlos de Bariloche, a tourist resort in the central Andes where it was I preparing to land. I At that precise instant, a power outage plunged the town into darkness, and the pilot received the order to stay on standby for a few minutes before making his final approach. When he began his approach, the pilot noticed a strange star. At the same time, the I control center put a second airplane that had arrived in the sector on standby. Flight AR 674 continued its approach, but when it had completed its tum and was in the ax.is ofthe runway, an object resembling a large aircraft appeared on its right side and flew parallel to I it! This object had three lights, one ofwhich was red, in the middle ofit. The airport lights failed again, and the runway and approach ramp lights also went out. The airplane on standby observed the same phenomenon from its position. I Since the pilot could not land, he pulled up and turned again in order to reposition himself in the ax.is ofthe runway. At that moment, the object, which had become luminous, moved behind the airplane, stopped, ascended vertically, and once again stopped. It moved back in front ofthe airplane before finally disappearing in the direction ofthe Andes Cordillera. The crew and passengers offlight AR 674, those on the other I airplane, the airport controllers, and some ofthe inhabitants of San Carlos watched this unusual aerial ballet dumbfounded. I - This case is interesting in more than one respect: ·1 the sighting was corroborated by multiple independent observers both in flight and on the ground, - the phenomenon lasted several minutes, I - there were different trajectories, some ofwhich closely followed those ofthe airplane, - there was an observation ofan electromagnetic phenomenon (the lights ofth~ town and the airport went out) directly related to the presence of the object. I Chapter 3 - Sightings from the Ground I This chapter deals with sightings from the ground, two ofwhich were reported to the committee by direct witnesses ofthe phenomena observed. Here agai~ their testimonies are all the more interesting since they pertain to the aeronautic world and the phenomena were observed during the day. I I 3.1 Phenomenon Observed by Numerous Witnesses at Antananarivo (August 16, 1954) Testimony before the commitlee Edmond Campagnac (C), a fonner artillery officer and former chief of technical I services for Air France in Madagascar who is now retired, came to testify before the committee. The phenomenon described below occurred on August 16, 1954, in I I I Antananarivo. It was seen by several hundred witnesses. At 1700 hours, when the personnel ofthe Air France office were waiting for the mail to I anive, someone spotted a "large ·· green "ball" in the sky moving at high speed. The first thought ofthe witnesses was that it was a meteorite. The phenomenon disappeared behind a hill, and they thought that the green ball was going to crash into the ground and , , that they were going to feel the impact. However, it reappeared after a minute. In passing directly over the observers, it revealed itselfto be "a sort ofmetal rugby hall preceded by a clearly detachedgreen I lens/-shapedportion] with sparks issuingfrom the rear." In the estimation ofthe witnesses, the "ball" was the length ofa DC4 airplane, or some forty meters long. The green lens[-shaped portion] separated itself [ and remained] a little less than 40 m out in I front, with fairly long sparks [ coming out] in the rear. The craft flew over Antananarivo at an estimated height of50 to 100 meters, an estimation that was made possible by comparison with the height ofa nearby hill. When the craft was moving, shop lights went I out, and animals exhibited a real anxiety. e After having flown over Antananarivo, the craft departed in a westerly direction. When it flew over the zebu park in the town, the craft caused a violent fright reaction among them. This is a surprising detail, since normally these animals do not show any agitation when Air France planes pass by. Two or three minutes later, an identical craft was observed 150 km from there above a farm school. There, too, the herds were overcome "I with panic. Ifthe craft sighted was the same one as the one in Antananarivo, its speed would have had to be on the order of3000 km/h. According to C's account, General Fleurquin, Commander-in-Chief in Madagascar, assembled a "scientific commission" to I conduct an investigation into these phenomena. No trace ofthis investigation could be found in the Air Force archives; however, GEPA (Groupe d'Etudes des Phenomenes Aerospatiaux [Aerospace Phenomena Study Group]) bulletin no. 6 ofthe 2nd half of 1964 I described this sighting. 3.2 Sighting by a Pilot ofa Saucer Close to the Ground (December 9, 1979) I GEPANISEPRA investigation and testimony before the committee At the time ofthe incident, former Air Force Lieutenant-Colonel Jean-Pierre Fartek (F) I was a Mirage III pilot in the 2nd fighter squadron at Dijon. F is currently a pilot for a private company. F was living, and still lives, in the same village near Dijon. His house is located at the end ofa housing development looking out onto fields. Approximately 250 I m away is a grove oftrees with an average height of 15 mat maximum. On December 9, 1979, at around 9: 15 a.m., F and his wife saw an unusual object (hereinafter called M) in the field near their house. The weather and visibility were excellent. M, the dimensions of I which they estimated to be 20 m in diameter by 7 m thick, was hovering approximately 3 m above the g round in front of the grove of trees, which partially concealed it. In complete agreement with his wife, witness F described it as: I - having the shape oftwo superposed saucers with very distinct contours inverted one on top of the other and not exhibiting any portholes or lights, - being metallic gray on the upper portion and darker (bluish) on the lower portion, I with a perfectly delimited separation between the upper side and the underside ofthe craft. Th.is color difference could not be due to a difference in lighting given the position of the sun, i - in constant motion as a result of~ slight oscillations, the frequency of which was not very rapid, like something trying to balance, I I I - not making any noise, I - - not causing any turbulence on the ground either when it hovered or when it departed, I not having left any trace on the ground. After observing it for a period of time which was hard· for him to determine, F saw M oscillate faster; he had the impression that M tilted slightly forward (as a helicopter does after lift-off when it begins level flight). F saw M leave in a horizontal direction at a very low altitude without making any noise, without leaving any trail, and at a very high speed I and disappear on the horizon in a few seconds. F reported [the incident] to the Gendarmerie de l'Air at the Dijon air base. He thought that other people had seen the phenomenon but had not dared to go report it, namely, his neighbors and their cruldren, I who reportedly made the same sighting. This sighting by a pilot professionally well informed ofaeronautical phenomena was never explained. I 3.3 A Case of Multiple Witnesses at a Russian Missile Base (July 28-29, 1989) I Heading the UFO reports declassified by the KGB in 1991 is a file relating to an army missile base near Kapustin Yar in the region ofAstrakhan, wruch was related in Marie Galbraith's book (cf. Chapter 9.1). The English-speaking public learned ofit through the I Muscovite journal A URA-Z ofMarch 1993. Military personnel from two centers on the base prepared written depositions of their visual sightings, wruch were made under good visibility conditions. The file, which is incomplete, does not mention any possible radar I detections. It begins with a brief summary ofthe case, the author ofwhich was an I anonymous KGB officer, followed by an account of seven written testimonies: - Five testimonies from the first center were provided by Lieutenant Klimenko, two corporals, and two soldiers. On the night ofJuly 28 to 29, these military personnel sighted I UFOs between 2215 and 2355 hours at a distance of3 to 5 km. Up to three objects were seen simultaneously. One object silently made jerky movements, with very abrupt starts and stops, and periods of immobility. All ofthe witnesses saw a fighter jet attempt to approach one UFO, wruch escaped at lightning speed, "giving the impression that the aircraft was hovering. " Only the noise from the aircraft was heard, whereas the UFO I must have reached supersonic speed. - Two other testimonies from a center near the first one concern the sighting of a UFO from 2330 to 0130 hours at a distance ranging from a few kilometers to 300 m. This UFO I was described by Second Lieutenant Volochine as a disk 4-5 min diameter, surmounted by a brightly lit hemispherical dome. The second lieutenant attached a sketch ofthe saucer torus deposition. The saucer sometimes moved abruptly, but soundlessly, and I sometimes remained immobile 20-60 m above the ground. In the company ofsoldier Tichaev, Volocrune saw it emitting a phosphorescent green light, hovering 300 m from them and some 20 m above a missile depot; it illuminated this depot for several seconds with a moving beam oflight. , , In a report that was consistent with the report of his superior, soldier Tichaev stressed the lack of noise made by the object, even when a short distance away, which prevented I him from confusing it with a helicopter. The two witnesses, who were joined after some :I time by the guard team, had watched the maneuvers of the object above the center and the surrounding area for two hours. Chapter 4 - Close Encounters in France I I I 4.1 Valensole, Alpes-de-Haute-Provence (Department] (July 1, 1965) I In-depth investigation by the Gendarmerie Nationale At Valensole on July 1, 1965, Maurice Masse, who left his home at 5:00 a.m., headed I for his lavender fields located on the plateau near the village. Before starting his tractor at around 6:00 a.m., he lit a cigarette and at that moment heard a hissing sound that attracted his attention. Emerging from behind a pile of stones, he saw an object resting in his field I approximately 90 m from him. Its shape was reminiscent ofthat ofa "Dauphine" automobile standing on six legs with a central pivot. He approached it with caution, at a distance often meters or so, thinking he might surprise people about to steal his lavender I from him. He then saw two small beings, one ofwhom, who was turned in his direction, reportedly pointed a tube at him that he took from a sort of bag hanging on his left side. Maurice Masse indicated that he was totally immobilized in place, numbed and paralyzed, I but completely aware ofthe events that were unfolding before his eyes. The two beings . J then got back in their craft. He watched them while they were behind a sort ofdome, and he heard a heavy noise when the object lifted up offthe ground. He also remarked that I the tube that was under the object, touching the ground, began to tum, as well as the six ·.A legs, which retracted under the machine. The object then ascended in a vertical direction before tilting diagonally and disappearing more rapidly than a jet. Maurice Masse I remained immobilized in this manner for about 15 minutes before coming to, then resuming his work and going to tell his story in the village, where the gendarmes, having learned ofthe incident, questioned him during the day. I The Valensole gendarmerie force, then the Digne investigations squad, investigated this case f