255_413270_UFO's_and_Defense_What_Should_we_Prepare_For English translation of the 1999 French COMETA Report ("UFOs and Defense: What Should We Prepare For?"), authored by a group of retired French generals, scientists, and a former IHEDN director, arguing that UFOs warrant serious study and proposing the extraterrestrial hypothesis as a credible explanation for residual unexplained cases. The DOW copy is fronted by an April 30, 2001 cover letter from Carol Rosin to "Dan" (likely NASA Administrator Dan Goldin) with handwritten annotations — only that cover material is unique to this NASA-archived copy.
The COMETA Report itself was published in France in 1999 and an English translation has been freely available online for over two decades (Internet Archive, NARCAP, summarized on Wikipedia). The 2001 cover letter to a NASA addressee is the only element here that may be a first-time release.
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 also 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 adime.) 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, QOJ“-« d’e/ 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. TLES - Dan- AS PROMISED, HE RE 1S THE FRENGH CoE ME TA REPORT By v wolte NOTE TH JREFCE ForrEe CoINTERPART AND A Y157 OF ConrEii—pwIre vz es o As I ApEsPo T I3 RedrE — R NOT G ERVMENT= SO yoRT 3V THE Wury S BER NATUY Ty OF THE DRTIEIAFITS Tyje e, T K, AECOMMENDS (T TP o ED FEE Arijcres ARE N OD 25 8F V vl FE2IPAL- On) (4 VE THE (AREE D oeomEa)s mWfiEfEA lEsz- Voo t5 A $UMHA;Z/Q‘TALLUDEPT O Teew CALLTI , PN pua s = STNTVAT NG DOCUME OR fre. oSOnPPY- IO 5 X Severe Ak TRAFEIC CompettiZR AT MEX Ca ry TATERAR TroalAe I popr~ ENRI QSE FOUDEAS (s o Br05- (LEA SE READ THE (P42 Btz PAPAR SECTIoN FTON ) JHOWEVED, For Reservations Call 1-800-HOTELS 1| G flLu.myJ THudie OF AHaritier's N THERE ARE MefLE “THIAES Tlr— pEAavED) Ardp pELL THAN AR Hy, DrizAmED &F Wovn Gireos0P HerzyTre " Thanks bt Fok el VS AND 1 F THERE ARE RUESTID T E— COF CoVRsyE CarL THE (i 35 NE A7 G99 4 7he AW/ ~20z 898-For0. 17 wiAs &ron TP 9?2/,91) Vst For Reservations Call 1-800-HOTELS 1 UFOs and Defense: What Should We Prepare For? -An independent report on UFOs written by the French association COMETA. This report details the results of a study by the Institu te of Higher Studies for National Defence.- This paper originally appeared in a special issue of the magaz ine VSD published in France in July 1999. UFOs and Defense --The COMETA Report-- =a “Stripping the UFO phenomenon of its irrational layer” B Foreword by Professor André Lebeau, Former chairman of the Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales (CNES) [French National Center for Space Studies] sE 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 of science. Such was the case with stones falling from the sky, which S was long considered in our country to be the stuff of fable. However, the day that a meteorite shower over the town of Laigle permitted a collective and indisputable a0 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 B scientific fact exist? ) When the phenomenon is a matter of experimentation, 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 v 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 o rare, is collectively and indisputably visible, it is easy to elevate it to the status of scientific object. The existence of eclipses, comets, and novas has been recognized since ancient times, even though their interpretation long contained - and sometimes still contains - a R religious dimension. Thus collective and simultaneous observation plays the same role as the reproducibility of experiments. This is not true when the event is not only rare but discrete as well, and when there is a v very small amount of evidence 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 BN activities, especially since the beginning of the space age, have generated atmospheric phenomena the origin of which is not immediately ascertainable by those who observe them. In any case, UFOs, the origin of which cannot be attributed to either a human D source or a natural mechanism that has been identified by science, are mixed in with a background noise the origin of which, although difficult to identify, is not at all mysterious. B Moreover, and above all, the existence of unexplained 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 of these phenomena be the work of extraterrestrial beings? This question gives the UFO issue a sociological, media-related, and even religious dimension in a domain that is not that of science and N 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 of scientific method to consider that the very existence of a strong irrational A environment is another reason to apply the precepts ofthis method to the issue of UFOs. COMETA has tried its luck at this in the report that it is presenting, supported, namely, N 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 of facts. But we also find in this S Y document a reflection on the hypothesis ofextraterrestri al intelligence and ofthe importance that it could have if studies came together to confirm it. This report is useful in that it contributes toward stripping the phenom enon of UFOs of its irrational layer. When all is said and done, the question of determining whether or not those who created this report believe in the existence of extraterrestrial visitors, concealed in a variety of phenomena that are surprising in appearance but commonplace with respect to their cause, is of no real importance. What a scientist believes is important in the conducting of his research because this is what motivates and drives him. But his belief is not important to the results ofhis research nor does it have any effect on those results if he is rigorous. Table of Contents PREFACE Page 5 FOREWORD Page 6 INTRODUCTION Page 7 PART 1 FACTS AND TESTIMONIES Chapter 1 Testimonies of French Pilots X Page 9 Chapter 2 Aeronautical Cases Throughout the World Page 12 Chapter 3 Sightings from the Ground Page 17 Chapter 4 Close Encounters in France Page 20 Chapter 5 Counterexamples of Phenomena That Have Been Explained Page 24 PART 2 THE EXTENT OF OUR KNOWLEDGE Chapter 6 Organization of the Research in France Page 27 Chapter 7 Methods and Results of GEPAN/SEPRA Page 31 Chapter 8 UFOs: Hypotheses, Modeling Attempts Page 35 Chapter 9 Organization of the Research Abroad Page 42 PART 3 UFOs AND DEFENSE Chapter 10 Strategic Planning Page 55 Chapter 11 Aeronautical Implications Page 59 Chapter 12 Scientific and Technical Implications Page 62 Chapter 13 Political and Religious Implications Page 64 Chapter 14 Media Implications Page 69 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Page 71 APPENDICES Appendix 1 Radar Detection in France Page 74 Appendix 2 Astronomers’ Sightings Page 74 Appendix 3 Life in the Universe Page 75 Appendix 4 Colonization of Space Page 75 Appendix 5 The Roswell Affair - Disinformation Page 77 Appendix 6 The Long History of the UFO Phenomenon - Elements ofa .y Chronology Page 80 Appendix 7 Reflections on Various Psychological, Sociological, W and Political Aspects of the UFO Phenomenon Page 82 S REFERENCES Page 87 GLOSSARY Page 90 o The photo section from pages 43 to 50, as well as pages 2 and 91, were not part of the initial report = Publication of: [G.S. Presse Communication logo] 79-83, rue Baudin, 92309 Levallois-Perret Cedex.01 552100 50, fax: 01 5521 00 55. Société anonyme with FF 250,000 in capital, in business e for 99 years. Sole Chief Executive Officer: Daniel Denis. Publication Director: Daniel Denis. Art Director: Richard Yotis. Editorial Assistant: Jacques Péron. Illustrations and Technical Consulting: Bernard Thouanel. Editorial Dept. 01 55 21 00 50. E- mail: W [email protected]. Public Relations Agent: Image7/Isabelle de Segonzac 01 44 15 93 94. Sales and restocking: MEP, 01 42 56 12 26, sl UFOs AND DEFENSE ‘What should we prepare for? COMETA, an association governed by the Law of July 1, 1901. o All reproduction, in whole or in part, translation, and adaptation rights reserved for all countries. Copyright 1999. 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. Copyright deposit: July 1999. © G.S. Presse Communication. The editorial department is not responsible for the loss of o or damage to texts or photos that are sent to it for consideration. Reproduction in whole or in part of any material published in the magazine is prohibited. = Cover: Photo taken on September 4, 1971, directly over the Tilaran range in Central America by an airplane from the National Geographic Institute of Costa Rica (Bernard Thouanel B collection). U on DS EE R R J— “Concrete problems are raised that call for a response in terms of action” by General Bernard Norlain, Former director of the Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense Nationale [Institute for Advanced National Defense Studies (THEDN)] When General Letty visited me in March 1995 at my office at THEDN to explain to me his project for creating a new committee for study of UFOs, I assured him of my interest and referred him to the management of the IHEDN Auditors Association (AA), which” 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 earlier, in February, he had organized, within the framework ofthe Ecole de P’ Air [Air Force Academy] Alumni Association, a conference on unidentified aerospac e phenomena. Before a large public, some of our comrades, former pilots, spontane ously related their encounters with UFOs. The person in charge of studying these phenome na at the CNES then presented his results, and a well-known astronomer described a scientifically acceptable version of the extraterrestrial hypothesis. The fields of knowledge 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 experts whose efforts he coordinated. The list of high-level civilian and military degrees of the members of his committee is very impressive: officers, engineers, and specialists in physics, life sciences, and social sciences were able to deal with all aspects ofthe study. 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 terms of action. The makeup of COMETA [Committee for In-Depth Studies], which is the name of the committee, took these into account. Almost all of its members have, or had during the course of their careers, important responsibilities in defense, industry, teaching, research or various central administrations. I express the wish that the recommendations of COME TA, which are inspired by good sense, will be examined and implemented by the authori ties of our 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 of UFOs. May this new report, which is much more in-depth, give new impetus to our national efforts and to indispen sable international cooperation. THEDN will then have well served the nation and, perhaps, humanit y. “Consider all of the hypotheses” .. by Denis Letty, Air Force General, 2nd Section, AA (35) BN The accumulation of well-documented sightings made by credible witnesses forces us to consider from now on all of the hypotheses regarding the origin of unidentifiedflying objects, or UFOs, and the extraterrestrial hypothesis, in particular. UFOs are now a part of our media environment; the films, television broadcasts, books, advertisements, etc., dealing with UFOs amply demonstrate this. o Although no characterized threat has been perceived to date in France, it seemed necessary to the former auditors ofthe Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense Nationale (THEDN) to take stock ofthe subject. Along with qualified experts from extremely varied oF backgrounds, they are grouped together to form a private in-depth fact-finding committee, which was christened COMETA. BN This committee was transformed into a COMETA association, which I chair. I would like to thank General Bernard Norlain, former director of THEDN, and Mr. André Lebeau, former chairman of the Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales, without whom COMETA v would not have been born. In addition, I wish to acknowledge the various people who agreed to give their e testimony or to contribute to this study, and namely: Jean-Jacques Vélasco, Head of SEPRA at CNES, Frangois Louange, Chief Executive Officer of Fleximage, R Jean-Charles Duboc, Jean-Pierre Fartek, René Giraud, civilian and military pilots, Edmond Campagnac, former technical director of Air France at Antananarivo, T Michel Perrier, Squadron Commander, Gendarmerie Nationale M. Soun, of the Direction Générale de I’ Aviation Civile [Civil Aviation Agency] Joseph Domange, Air Force General, Auditors Association delegate general. 4 I must also thank the commander of the Air Force Air Operations Command Center for its participation during the investigation into flight AF 3532 on January 28, 1994. Among the members of COMETA who spared no effort for close to three years, it is possible for me to list: Michel Algrin, State Doctor of Political Science, attorney-at-law, AA (35), (1) Pierre Bescond, Weapons Engineer General, 2nd Section, AA (48), Denis Blancher, Chief of Police, Police Nationale, Ministry of the Interior, Jean Dunglas, Doctor of Engineering (Ret.), in Water and Foredtry Management AR (48) Bruno Le Moine, Air Force General, 2nd Section, AA (41), Francoise Lépine, Fondation pour les Etudes de Défense [Foundation for Defense Studies], AA (33), . Christian Marchal, Chief Mining Engineer, Research Director at ONERA [National Aerospace Study and Research Office], Marc Merlo, Admiral, 2nd Section, AA (35), Alain Orszag, Doctor of Physical Sciences, Weapons Engineer General, 2nd Section. (1): AA or AR xx: auditor of national or regional promot ion no. xx. INTRODUCTION In 1976, a committee ofthe Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense Nationale (IHEDN) chaired by General Blanchard, of the Gendarmerie Nationale, opened the unidentified flying objects file. The objective: to make proposals for organizing research and the collection of data on these phenomena. The-goal was achieved, because the recommendations of this committee were followed by the creation of the Groupe d’Etude des Phénomeénes Aérospatiaux Non Identifiés (GEPAN) [Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena Study Group], the precursor to the current Service d’Expertise des Phénoménes de Rentrée Atmosphérique (SEPRA) [Atmospheric Reentry Phenomena X Consulting Department], a division of the Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales (CNES), which is in charge of this file. Twenty years later, it seemed useful to us to take stock once again of the knowledge regarding these sightings, which are becoming of greater and greater interest to a large public that is often convinced of the extraterre am strial origin of UFOs. Just look at the number of films or television broadcasts on this subject. For the sake of convenience with respect to language, we will use the term UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) generally, instead of the more scientifi c term UAP = (Unidentified Aerospace Phenomenon). Without a doubt, the phenomenon remains and the number of sightings , which are By completely unexplained despite the abundance and quality of data, is growing throughout the world. On the ground, some sightings, like the Trans-en-Provenc e sighting in 1981, have been the subject of in-depth studies proving that something did in fact land on the 4B ground and parked there. Civilian and military pilots have provided gripping visual testimonies, often corroborated by radar recordings, as was the case recently in France. In view of the lack of irrefutable proof regarding the origin of these phenomena, the need for understanding persists. W We will devote the first part of this report to several particularly remarkable French and foreign cases. SE In the second part, after having recalled the current organiz ation of the research on these phenomena in France and abroad, we will evaluat e the work being done by scientists worldwide who are interested in UFOs and are propos ing, as we will see, partial explanations that are based on known laws of physic s s. Some of these (propulsion systems, non lethal weapons, etc.) could become realities in the short, medium and long term. We will review the principal global explanations o 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 G 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 of SEPRA and promo ting supplemental scientific monitoring, or even research, actions, - considering the strategic, political, and religi ous consequences of a possible confirmation ofthe extraterrestrial hypothesis, the bizarre connotation of which it is advisable to eliminate here and now. PART 1 Facts and Testimonies Before going further, it seems worthwhile to us to present several facts and testimonies that in themselves justify the interest of the 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, - three sightings from the ground, - four cases of close encounters in France. These few examples are among the hundreds of remarkable, that is to say credible and well-documented, cases observed around the world in recent decades. None of these cases has been explained, whereas the majority of times the investigations enable the origin of the phenomena observed by the witnesses to be determined; we will give two significant examples of this. 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 evaluated better than other aerial phenomena since they pertain to the aeronautic world. 1.1 M. Giraud, Mirage IV pilot (March 7, 1977). The sequence of events of this incident was reconstructed from radio exchanges between the pilot and the controller, which are routinely recorded and kept for a specific period of time in accordance with the procedure in force at all control centers. The 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 night mission. [The aircraft was] at an altitude of 9600 m and flying at a speed of “Mach 0.9.” The flight conditions were very good. The pilot (P), Hervé Giraud, and his navigator (N) observed a very bright glow at “3 o’clock” (time code) from their aircraft, 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 Contrexéville military radar station that controlled them to ask whether they had a radar contact on the 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 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 of the controller is a standard emergency procedure; it shows that the controller is so surprised by the crew’s question that he suspects an oxygen problem capable ofcausing a “hallucination.” “Assailant A1” maintained its course towards the Mirage IV. P initiated a bank to the right toward Al, a bank which he was forced to keep tightening (3 to 4 g) in order to try to maintain visual contact on Al and to keep it from positioning itself to the rear. Despite this maneuver, Al moved behind the Mirage IV at an estimated distance of 1500 m. At this point P reversed his bank to regain visual contact on Al. He saw the glow move away to “11 o’clock.” He resumed course to Luxeuil. But 45 seconds after he resumed course to Luxeuil, feeling like he was being “watched” accordin g 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.” 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 IV’s maneuver in order to position itself to the rear at an estimated distance of 2000 m. P reversed, as before, and 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 normally to the Luxeuil base. Those are the facts. Two points should be emphasized: - only a combat aircraft could have had performance comparable to that of Al and A2 (speed, maneuverability). In this case, C would have had a radar contact on this aircraft, especially at that altitude, a contact that he would have seen all the better since there was no other traffic in the vicinity of the Mirage 1V - given the apparent maneuvers of Al and A2, regardless of whether or not they were the same craft, their speed could only be supersonic, which, in the case of combat aircraft, would be manifested on the ground by a very loud sonic boom due to the phenomenon of the focusing ofthe shock wave generated by the bank. This would have been noticed in the surrounding area, especially since it was nighttime. But no sound was heard in the region. 1.2 Testimony of a Fighter Pilot (March 3, 1976) 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 Bosc). On March 3, 1976, P, then a student pilot at 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 of 6000 m following a Rennes- Nantes-Poitiers itinerary, then landing at Tours. Several aircraft were following the same 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. Visibilit y was greater than 100 km. While he was flying stabilized at an altitude of 6000 m, at a speed of 460 km/h, P first saw straight ahead, very far off in the distance (at the detection limit of lights on the ground) what he at first thought was the launching of a green signaling flare. In 1 to 2 seconds, this flare exceeded the altitude ofhis aircraft by 1500 m and seemed 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 windshie ld ofthe cockpit. Thinking that impact was inevitable, P let go of the joystick and crossed his arms in front 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 very last moment and passed over his right wing grazing it, all within a fraction ofa second. P retained the following memory of this incident: - S was not very large (1 to 2 m in diameter), - 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 of a very bright white light (magnesium-fire type), - the sighting lasted a total of less than 5 seconds. P, who was very shocked by this phenomenon, informed the radar controller (-) 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. 1.3 Air France Flight AF 3532 (January 28, 1994) Jean-Charles Duboc (P), captain of Air France flight AF 3532, was assisted by Copilot Valérie Chauffour (CP) in making the Nice-London connection on January 28, 1994. At 1314 hours, while they were cruising at an altitude of 11,900 m in the vicinity of Coulommiers in Seine-et-Marne [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 confirmed by the copilot. P, who in turn 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 10,500 m and at a distance of approximately 50 km. Taking into account its apparent diameter, they deduced that the craft was large. They were struck by the changes in the shape of the craft, which first appeared in the form of a brown bell before transforming into a chestnut brown lens shape, then disappearing almost instantaneously on the left side of the aircraft, as if it had suddenly become invisible. P reported to the Reims Air Navigation Control Center, which had no information on any mobile air presence in the vicinity. However, following the existing procedure, Reims informed the Taverny Air Defense Operations Center (CODA) of the sighting made by the crew and asked P to follow the “Airmiss” procedure upon landing. CODA did in fact record a radar track initiated by the Cing-Mars-la-Pile control center at the same time that corresponded in location and time to the phenomenon observed. This radar track, which was recorded for 50 seconds, did cross the trajectory of flight AF 3532 and did not correspond to any flight plan filed. It should be noted that the phenomenon disappeared from the view of the crew and the radar scopes at the same instant. The investigations conducted by CODA enabled both the hypothesis of a weather balloon to be ruled out and the precise crossing distance of the two trajectories to be determined, consequently bringing the approximate length of the craft to 250 m in length. 1t 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 of which was that of flight AF 3532. Chapter 2 - Aeronautic Cases Throughout the World 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 of an investigati on by 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 of independent witnesses. 2.1 Lakenheath (United Kingdom) (August 13-14, 1956) The joint USAF - U.S. Air Force - and RAF [Royal Air Force] military bases of Lakenheath and Bentwaters are located 30 km northeast of Cambridge with respect to the first and near the coast to the east of this city with respect to the second. Unknown aerial objects followed by their radars during the night of August 13 to 14, 1956, were judged “‘unidentified” by the report published in 1969 by the Condon Commission tasked with evaluating the research of the U.S. Air Force on UFOs (cf. Chapter 9). In September 1971, the magazine Astronautics and Aeronautics 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 of the journal Aviation Week and Space Technology, attempted to criticize this work and to 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 of the approach control radar [center], which we will not g0 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 of 2000 to 4000 miles per hour (mph), or 3200 to 6400 km/h. No sonic boom was mentioned. The personnel of the Bentwaters control tower said they saw a bright light flying over the ground from east to west “at an incredible speed” at an altitude of approximately 1200 m. At the same time, the pilot of a 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 “af an incredible speed.” The two visual sightings confirmed the radar detection. - 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 of these 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 contradi ct the documents in the USAF [Project] Blue Book file except in a few minor points; among these documents, the regulation telex sent by Lakenheath to the Blue Book team on the day of the incident and the report forwarded two weeks later to that same team by American Captain Holt, an intelligence officer at Bentwaters. - The shift supervisor at the Lakenheath base alerted his radar operators . One ofthem detected a stationary object approximately 40 km southwest of the base, almost in the axis of the trajectory of the supersonic object seen at 2255 hours. The shift supervisor called the Lakenheath approach radar [center], which confirmed the sighting. The radar technicians at the air traffic control center suddenlv saw the object immediat ely go from immobility to a speed of 600 to 950 km/h. The shift supervisor notified the base commander The object changed direction several times, describing line segments ranging from 13 to 30 km, separated by abrupt stops for 3 to 6 minutes; the speed always went from a value of zero 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 that radar and ground visual observations were made on its rapid acceleration and abrup! stop certainly lend credence to the report." - After 30 to 45 minutes, the RAF sent a night fighter, a Venom two-seater, in pursuit of the object. The Lakenheath air traffic radar control center guided it in the direction of the object 10 km east of the center. The pilot acquired the target visually and on radar, then lost it. The center then directed the plane 16 km to the east of Lakenheath; the pilot 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 10 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 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 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. Thayer concluded his article in the journal Astronautics and Aeronautics in this manner: " taking into consideration the high credibility of information and cohesiveness and continuity of account, combined with a high degree of 'strangeness’, it is also certainly one of the most disturbing UFO incidents known today." 2.2 The RB-47 Aircraft in the United States (July 17, 1957) 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 aforementioned journalist, then endeavored in 1976 to trivialize the facts, which was highly contestable from the outset. The bulk of this interpretation was refuted at the end of 1997, upon completion of an in-depth investigation contained in a memorandum from the aerospace technology researcher Brad Sparks. We will summarize here the important sequences of events of the case, which show a luminous unidentified flying object detected at night not only by sight and on radar, but also by pulsed microwave emissions coming from its direction: The RB-47 was a bomber […truncated…]