UFO's and Defense What Should we Prepare For (National Archives RG 255)

TL;DR

July 1999: the report’s deadline beat the UFOs’ speed.

• PDF from NASA, containing COMETA report originally published July 1999 in VSD (France).
• Reports Institute of Higher Studies for National Defence study, analyzing sightings, testimonies, hypotheses, and strategic implications.
• No official conclusion in the file.

AI summary

A declassified document compiled by various authors and organizations, including Carol Rosin, General Bernard Norlain, Denis Letty, and others, discusses UFOs and UAPs from the 1940s to the early 2000s. It includes reports of sightings, technical analyses, and hypotheses about their origins, with references to France, the U.S., and other countries. The text details specific incidents such as a 1976 Mirage IV encounter, a 1981 Trans-en-Provence event, and a 2001 Russian airport shutdown. It covers studies by GEPAN, SEPRA, and NARCAP, as well as military and scientific investigations. The document explores theories ranging from natural phenomena to extraterrestrial origins and recommends preparing for potential implications on defense, science, and society. It was compiled with input from military, scientific, and civilian sources, and includes references to declassified materials from the 1970s to 2000.

Full text

Page 2

•

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
Rosin@west.net
PS. The photo was taken at the US Space Foundation where we were keynote speakers.

Page 3

TUES-
DAN- AS PROMISED, HERE
IS THE FRENCH COMETA REPORT
YOU WIL NOTE THE PREACE BY
YOUR FORMER COUNTERPART ANDA
LISTOF CONTRIBUTORS ON P5.
I MISSPOKE-ITISAPRINATE-
NOT GOVERNMENT-REPORT BUT
THE QUALITY AND SOBER NATUNE
OF THE PARTKIPANTS STILL, I
THINK, RECAMMENDS 1T TOYOU.
ARTICLES ARE INCLUDED FOR
YOUR PERUSAL. ON PUZ5 OF
THE LARGE DOCOMENT WE GAVE
YOU IS A SUMMARY OF THE REPORT.
IALWDEDTO
JOHN CALLAHAN'S TESTMONYWITH
MS SOPPORTINGDOCUMEUTATION
IS ON PZ. SENIORAIR TRAFFIC
CONTROLLER AT MEX GTYINTERNA
TIONAL AIRPORT -ENRIQUE KOLBECK-
13 OU P.IO5-PLEASE READ THE
HOWEVER. ENTIRE RADAR SECTION FION P6Z
For Reservations Call 1-800-HOTELS 1

Page 4

I ALUSAS THINKC OF HAMLET'S
"THERE ARE MORE THINGS TWIXT
HEANENAND HELL THANARE
DREAMED OF IN YOUR BHILOSOPHY,
HORATIO."
THANKS PEAIN FOR SEEING US
AND IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS-
OF COURSE CALL THE RENAISSANCE
AT 999 9Th Nw -202 898.9000
ITWAS GOOD TO SEE YOU
En Ceppher
For Reservations Call 1-800-HOTELS 1

Page 5

I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I

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 Institute of
Higher Studies for National Defence.-

I
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.

Page 7

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 of Laigle 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 of the 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 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
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 of eclipses, 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 of experiments.
This is not true when the event is not only rare but discrete as well, and when there is a
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
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
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.
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
scientific methods. And it is the very existence of this 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 ofa strong irrational
environment is another reason to apply the precepts of this method to the issue of UFOs.
COMETA 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 of facts. But we also find in this

Page 8

document a reflection on the hypothesis of extraterrestrial intelligence and of the
importance that it could have if studies came together to confirrn it.
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 of detennining whether or not
those who created this report believe in the exi~tence ofextraterrestrial 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 scienti?t believes is important in the
conducting of his research because this is what motivates and drives him. But his beliefis
not important to the results of his research nor does it have any effect on those results if he
is rigorous.

I
I

I
I
I·
..

Table of Contents

I
I

Page 5
PREFACE
Page 6
FOREWORD
Page 7
INTRODUCTION
PART l
FACTS AND TESTIMONIES
Page 9
Chapter 1 Testimonies of French Pilots
Chapter 2 Aeronautical Cases Throughout the World
Page 12
Page 17
Chapter 3 Sightings from the Ground
Page 20
Chapter 4 Close Encounters in France
Chapter 5 Counterexamples of Phenomena That Have Been Explained
Page 24

'I

PART 2
Chapter 6

i

Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
PART3
Chapter 10
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Chapter 14

THE EXTENT OF OUR KNOWLEDGE
Organization of the Research in France
Page 27
Methods and Results ofGEP AN/SEPRA
UFOs: Hypotheses, Modeling Attempts
Organization of the Research Abroad

Page 31
Page 35
Page 42

UFOs AND DEFENSE
Strategic Planning
Aeronautical Implications
Scientific and Technical Implications
Political and Religious Implications
Media Implications

Page 55
Page 59
Page 62
Page 64
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 S The Roswell Affair - Disinforrnation
Page 77
Appendix 6 The Long History of the UFO Phenomenon - Elements ofa

.· :·

I

I
I

I
I
I
I
I

I

Page 9

,

I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I
I
, ,

I
I

I
I

Chronology
Appendix 7 Reflections on Various Psychological, Sociological,
and Political Aspects of the UFO Phenomenon

Page 80
Page

82
REFERENCES
GLOSSARY

Page 87
Page 90

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
55 21 00 50, fax: 01 55 21 00 55. Societe anonyme with FF 250,000 in capital, in business
for 99 years. Sole Chief Executive Officer: Daniel Denis. Publication Director: Daniel
Denis. Art Director: Richard Y otis. Editorial Assistant: Jacques Peron. Illustrations and
Technical Consulting: Bernard Thouanel. Editorial Dept. 0 1 55 21 00 50. E-mail:
vsd_hs@worldnet.fr. Public Relations Agent: Image7/Isabelle de Segonzac 01 44 15 93
94. Sales and restocking: MEP, 01 42 56 12 26,
UFOs AND DEFENSE
What should we prepare for?
COtviETA, an association governed by the Law ofJuly 1, 190 1.
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
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.

Cover:
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).

Page 10

"Concrete problems are raised that call for a response
in terms ofaction"
by General Bernard Norlain,
Former director of the lnstitut des Hautes Etudes de Defense
Nation ale
(Institute for Advanced National Defense Studies
(IBEDN)]

When General Letty visited me in March I 995 at my office at IHEDN 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 ofthe 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 of the Ecole de l' Air [Air
Force Academy] Alumni Association, a conference on unidentified aerospace phenomena.
Before a large public, some of our comrades, former pilots, spontaneously related their
encounters with UFOs. The person in charge of studying these phenomena 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 h~ 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 of the 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 tenns of action. The makeup of
COMETA [Committee for In-Depth Studies], which is the name ofthe 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 COMETA, which are inspired by good
sense, will be examined and implemented by the authorities 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 indispensable international
cooperation. IHEDN will then have well served the nation and, perhaps, humanity.

"Consider all oftile hypotheses"

I

I
I
I
I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I
I
I

Page 11

I

I
I

I
I
I
I
,

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I
I

I

by Denis Letty,
Air Force General, 2nd Section, AA (35)
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
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
necessary to the former auditors of the Institut des Hautes Etudes de Defense Nationale
(IHEDN) to take stock of the 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.
This committee was transformed into a COMETA association, which I chair. I would
like to thank General Bernard Norlain, former director of IHEDN, and Mr. Andre Lebeau,
former chairman of the Centre National d' Etudes Spatiales, without whom COMETA
would not have been born.
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 of SEPRA at CNES,
Fran~ois Louange, Chief Executive Officer of Flex.image,
Jean-Charles Duboc, Jean-Pierre Fartek, Rene Giraud, civilian and military
pilots,
Edmond Campagnac, former technical director of Air France at Antananarivo,
Michel Perrier, Squadron Commander, Gendannerie Nationale
M. Soun, ofthe Direction Generale de !'Aviation Civile [Civil Aviation Agency]
Joseph Domange, Air Force General, Auditors Association delegate general.
I must also thank the commander of the Afr Force Air Operations Command Center for
its participation during the investigation into flight AF 3532 on January 28, 1994.
Among the members ofCOMETA 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 ),
Fran~oise Lepine, Fondation pour Jes Etudes de Defense [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.

Page 12

,~
(/): AA or AR xx: auditor of national or regional promotion no. xx.

INTRODUCTION
In 1976, a committee of the Institut des Hautes Etudes de Defense Nationale (IHEDN)
chaired by General Blanchard1 of the Gendarmerie Nationale1 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 cornm.ittee were followed b, 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
Phenomenes de Rentree Atmospherique (SEPRA) [Atmospheric Reentry Phenomena
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 extraterrestrial origin of
UFOs. Just look at the number offilms or television broadcasts on this subject.
For the sake ofconvenience with respect to language, we will use the term UFO
(Unidentified Flying Object) generally1 instead of the more scientific term UAP
(Unidentified Aerospace Phenomenon).
Without a doubt, the phenomenon remains and the number of sightings, which are
completely unexplained despite the abundance and quality of data, is growing throughout
the world. On the ground, some sightings, like the Trans-en-Provence sighting in 1981,
have been the subject of in-depth studies proving that something did in fact land on the
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.
We will devote the first part of this report to several particularly remarkable French and
foreign cases.
In the second part, after having recalled the current organization of the research on
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 of physics.
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 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 of SEPRA and promoting supplemental scientific monitoring,
or even research, actions,
- considering the strategic, political, and religious consequences of a possible
confirmation of the extraterrestrial hypothesis, the bizarre connotation of which it is
1

I
I
I
I
1.

I
I

I

I

e
I
I

-

Page 13

advisable to eliminate here and now.

PART I
Facts and Testimonies

I

I
I
I
I

I
I
I

I
I

I
I
I
I
I

I

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 of French civilian and military pilots who encountered UFOs in flight,
- five major aeronautical cases in the world,
- three sightings frQm the ground,
- four cases ofclose 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 ohimes 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 eva1uated
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 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,
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
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

Page 14

~

surprised by the crew's question that he suspects an oxygen problem capable of causing a
"hallucination."
"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
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
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."
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 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 nonnally 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 A 1 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 lY .
• - 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 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
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 Bose). 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. Visibility 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
straig ht 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 of his aircraft by 1500 m and seemed
to level off in space before descending in his direction. It approached at a dizzying speed
on a collision course with the aircraft and fi lled 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
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
I
II
.'

I
:!.

I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Page 15

r

I

I
I
!I

I

I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I

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 ( l 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 of S consisted ofa 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
Valerie 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-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
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 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 ofthe craft, which first appeared in the form of a brown bell before transforrning
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 Tavemy Air
Defense Operations Center (CODA) ofthe 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 Cinq-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 offlight 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 min length.
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 of which was that of flight AF 3532.

Chapter 2 - Aeronautic Cases Throughout the World

Page 16

.,
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 investigation by
the authorities of the 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
··11nide111ified'' by the report published in 1969 by the Condon Commission tasked with

Text continues in the original file (94 pages).

Same topic: title & summary match

• DD 3212

Same release: Release 01

• FBI Photo A001
• FBI Photo A002
• FBI Photo A003
• FBI Photo A004
• FBI Photo A005
• FBI Photo A006

Same agency: NASA

• NASA-UAP-D030 — STS-80 Unidentified Object Image 1, 1996
• NASA-UAP-D031 — STS-80 Unidentified Object Image 2, 1996
• NASA-UAP-D032 — STS-80 Unidentified Object Image 3, 1996
• NASA UAP Independent Study Team — Final Report
• NASA-UAPISTTermsofReference_Signed — UAP Independent Study Team — Terms of Reference
• Public Meeting Agenda — May 31, 2023

Discussion

• Roswell, what happened?