18
• • • • • • •
The COMETA Report
A very important document related to the disclosure of extraterrestrial activity on Earth as evidenced by UFO encounters, contacts, and sightings was released in France in 1999. It revealed to the world that not all governments take the position of the U.S. government where the reality of UFOs is concerned.
In fact, it prompted a wave of public disclosures by other governments, who opened their previously secret files for all to read.
The image*3 shows a classic disc-shaped UFO, as found throughout the history of sightings dating back to Ezekiel.
On Friday, July 16, 1999, the world was stunned when a report titled “UFOs and Defense: What Must We Be Prepared For?” was published by the French Institut des Hautes Études de Défense Nationale (Institute of Advanced Studies for National Defense; IHEDN). This ninety-page document, which is commonly called “The COMETA Report,” was written at the behest of COMETA, a private UFO study organization known as Comité pour des Études Approfondies (Committee for In-Depth Studies). COMETA included among its members high-ranking military personnel, public officials, and scientists in the aerospace industry. Therefore, the report was taken seriously.
The in-depth study covered many aspects of the UFO subject, particularly as they related to issues of national defense. It was conducted over the course of several years by an independent group of former IHEDN auditors and by military and scientific experts, from various pertinent fields.
Before its public release, the conclusions of the study were sent to then–French president Jacques Chirac and to Prime Minister Lionel Jospin.
What follows is my summary:
The report was prefaced by French Air Force general Bernard Norlain, former director of IHEDN, and it began with a preamble by André Lebeau, former chairman of the Centre National d’Études Spatiales (National Center for Space Studies; CNES), the French equivalent of NASA.
In his introductory remarks regarding the appearance of UFOs in the skies over Earth, Lebeau asked, “Could some of these phenomena be the work of extraterrestrial beings?” He also wrote, “This report is useful in that it contributes toward stripping the phenomenon of UFOs of its irrational layer.”1
The preface makes it clear that the scientific method has been strictly adhered to by COMETA, though there is a speculative thread as regards the extraterrestrial hypothesis.
It is of great importance that the French officials included space scientists in their studies. If NASA officials had ever been involved in UFO investigations in the United States, it was kept top secret because NASA is never mentioned by U.S. military officials as ever being consulted.
Just how important this document was, and still is, can be understood by the credentials of the committee’s membership. An exhaustive list of members, which is very impressive, is given at the beginning of the report. It includes:
(That these officials would in no way wish to compromise their reputations and careers is obvious. Most of the committee members then held, or had held, important positions in defense, industry, education, and research, or as government administrators.)
In a short preface, Norlain explained how the committee was created.
In brief, Air Force General Denis Letty came to see him in March 1995, when he was director of IHEDN, to discuss his idea that a committee to investigate UFOs should be formed. Norlain assured him of his interest and referred him to the Auditors Association of IHEDN, which in turn gave him its support, and COMETA was formed.
Then Letty, as president of COMETA, wrote that after careful consideration of many well-documented UFO observations, the committee was compelled to consider all hypotheses as to the origin of UFOs, especially the extraterrestrial hypotheses.
Following the general’s comments, the committee presented the contents of the study. The first part consisted of the presentation of some remarkable cases from both France and other countries.
In the next section of the report, they described the then-current research efforts in France and abroad and studies made by scientists around the world, which they noted might provide partial explanations of the UFO phenomenon, in accordance with known laws of physics.
The main global explanations were then reviewed; they ranged from the theory that UFOs were secret military aircraft to the possibility of their being extraterrestrial manifestations.
In the third part, the committee examined issues regarding national defense based on information from both civilian and military pilots. They noted that many concerns, including strategic, political, and religious consequences, had to be considered should the extraterrestrial hypothesis be confirmed.
Next, I present the actual cases that COMETA evaluated and included in their report.
PART I: FACTS AND TESTIMONIES
The group studied the most well-documented, credible cases available. Many of the cases chosen were already well known by most UFO researchers but not to the general public. I include my comments in italics.
Testimonies of French Pilots
1.1 M. GIRAUD, PILOT OF MIRAGE IV (MARCH 7, 1977)
The incident occurred on March 7, 1977, at 9:00 pm local time during the Dijon flyover when the Mirage IV was returning, with the autopilot system engaged, to Luxeuil following a night mission. The aircraft was flying at an altitude of 9600 meters and approaching the speed of “Mach 0.9.”
The flight conditions were very good. Suddenly the pilot, Herve Giraud and his navigator, 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.
Pilot Giraud queried the Contrexeville military radar station that controlled their flight, to ask whether they had radar contact on the aircraft coming toward them. In fact, the pilot and navigator thought that it was an air defense interceptor, seeking to intercept their aircraft to identify it.
The radar controller did not have a corresponding radar contact on his scope, gave a negative response, and asked the pilots to check their oxygen. This request is a standard emergency procedure. It shows that the controller is so taken aback by the crew’s question that he suspects an oxygen problem capable of causing a “hallucination.”
The UFO maintained its course toward the Mirage IV. The pilot initiated a bank to the right toward it; a bank that he was forced to keep tightening (3 to 4 g) in order to try to maintain visual contact with the object and to keep it from positioning itself to the rear. Despite this maneuver, the UFO moved behind the Mirage IV at an estimated distance of 1500 m.
At this point the pilot reversed his bank to regain visual contact with the UFO. He then saw the glow move away to “11 o’clock.” He resumed course to Luxeuil. But 45 seconds after he resumed course, he began feeling like he was being “watched” according to his own words, Giraud told his navigator, “You wait and see it’s going to come back.”
And in fact, an identical glow, appeared at “3 o’clock.” The pilot 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 again at an estimated distance of 2000 m.
The pilot reversed, as before and again saw the glow disappear as it had previously. The controller still did not have a radar contact on the UFO. The pilot and navigator continued their flight, returning to the Luxeuil base without further incident.
Those are the facts. Two points should be emphasized:
[This is a high-quality case because of the testimony of a trained pilot and his navigator and the inclusion of an on-ground controller. Anyone who believes a flight crew would risk their licenses and careers by fabricating such an event is out of touch with reality. I totally concur with COMETA that this case constitutes a completely credible event.]
1.2 TESTIMONY OF A FIGHTER PILOT (MARCH 3, 1976)
On March 3, 1976, Colonel Claude Bosc, 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 attitude of 6000 meters following a Rennes-Nantes-Poitiers itinerary; then landing at Tours. Several trailing aircraft were following the same itinerary at 5-minute intervals.
It was a clear night and the towns could be seen at the flight altitude in question. Visibility was greater than 100 km. While he was flying in a stable pattern at an altitude of 6000 m—and speed of 460 km/h—Bosc observed a green light, very far off in the distance (at the detection limit of lights on the ground), that he initially assumed was the launching of a green signal flare.
In 1 to 2 seconds, the “flare” exceeded the altitude of his aircraft by 1500 m and seemed to level off before descending in his direction. It approached at a dizzying speed on a collision course with his aircraft and filled the entire front windshield of the cockpit.
Thinking that impact was inevitable, the pilot let go of the joystick and crossed his arms in front of his face in a self-protective, reflex gesture.
The aircraft was completely enveloped in a brilliant, phosphorescent green light; the pilot saw a sphere that avoided his aircraft, at the very last moment, passing over his right wing but slightly grazing it, all occurring within a fraction of a second.
The pilot related the following memory of this incident:
Colonel Bosc related that he 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 Bosc—stated that they had seen the phenomenon, but from a distance.3
[Again the testimony of a military pilot, corroborated by other pilots, is virtually unimpeachable. Of note is the fact that the UFO did not appear on ground radar equipment in either of the above cases. This suggests that the UFOs have stealth technology.]
1.3 AIR FRANCE FLIGHT AF 3532 (JANUARY 28, 1994)
At 1314 on the night of Jan 28, 1994 Jean-Charles Duboc (P), captain of Air France flight AF 3532 and his Co-pilot Valerie Chauffour (CP) were making the Nice-London connection.
They were cruising at an altitude of 11,900 meters in the vicinity of Coulommiers in Seine-et-Marne [Department]; the weather conditions were perfect; the chief steward, who was present in the cockpit at the time, suddenly pointed out a phenomenon that he thought to be a weather balloon.
His sighting was immediately confirmed by the copilot. The pilot, who in turn saw it, initially thought that it was actually an aircraft banking at a 45° angle. However, all quickly agreed that what they were seeing did not resemble anything that they knew of.
The excellent visibility and the presence of altocumulus clouds permitted the pilot to estimate that the phenomenon was at an altitude of 10,500 meters 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. The pilot reported to the Reims Air Navigation Control Center, which had no information on any flight traffic in the vicinity.
However, following standard procedures, Reims informed the Taverny Centre d’Opération de la Défense Aérienne (Air Defense Operations Center; CODA) of the sighting made by the crew and asked the pilot 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 [UFO] phenomenon observed. This radar track, which was recorded for 50 seconds, crossed the trajectory of flight AF 3532 and did not correspond to any flight plan filed.4
[It should be noted that the phenomenon disappeared from the view of the crew and the radarscopes at the same instant.]
The investigations that were subsequently conducted by CODA ruled out the weather balloon hypothesis and established the crossing distance of the two trajectories to be determined, consequently bringing the approximate length of the craft to 250 m in length [a monstrous-size UFO].
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 [prior to 1999, when the report was issued], one of which was that of flight AF 3532.5
[This case involves the testimony of a commercial flight crew backed up by ground radar tracking, making it highly credible.]
Aeronautical Cases throughout the World
The next section of the report involves cases that occurred in other parts of the world outside of French jurisdiction that included radar confirmation and were investigated by the nations involved.
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 appeared on their radar screens during the night of August 13 to 14, 1956, and were later 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. . . .
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.
The incidents began at the Bentwaters base, between 2100 and 2200 hours, when unusual sightings were made by the approach control radar center.
After those events the following took place:
Thayer concluded his article in the journal Astronautics and Aeronautics in this manner: “If one considers the strong credibility of the information and the coherence and continuity of the reports, as well as their high degree of ‘strangeness,’ this UFO case is certainly one of the more troubling cases known to date, the case is compelling.”6
What follows is an examination of one important case.
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.
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:
They related that:
The above case was obviously very intensively studied and well documented.
PART II: THE EXTENT OF OUR KNOWLEDGE
This section of the report begins with a survey of how the government conducted UFO research in France, from the first instructions given to the gendarmerie in 1974 for the recording of reports to the creation of Groupe d’Étude des Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-identifiés (Unidentified Aerospace Phenomenon Research Group; GEPAN) in 1977; this organization collected more than three thousand reports from the gendarmerie, cases studies, and statistical analyses.
It then surveyed agreements made by GEPAN and, later, Service d’Expertise des Phénomènes Rares Aérospatiaux (Rare Aerospace Phenomena Expertise Department; SEPRA) with the air force and the army, civilian aviation groups, and other organizations, including civilian and military laboratories, which analyzed samples and photographs taken from various UFO cases.
Chapter 8 of the report, “UFOs: Hypotheses, Modeling Attempts,” discusses some models and hypotheses that were under study at the time in several countries.
Noted is the fact that partial simulations of potential UFO propulsion systems had already been made. They were based on observations of various aspects of the phenomena, such as speed, movements, rapid acceleration, the engine failure of nearby vehicles, and paralysis of witnesses.
One model is MHD propulsion, which had already tested successfully in water. The report suggested that such propulsion might be achieved in the atmosphere with superconducting circuits in a few decades. Other studies are briefly mentioned regarding both atmospheric and space propulsion, such as particle beams, antigravity, or reliance on planetary and stellar impulsion.
The report goes on to suggest and note the following:
The failure of vehicle engines, often reported by witnesses, may be explained by microwave radiation. High power hyper frequency generators are under study in France and other countries; one application is microwave weapons. Particle beams, such as proton beams, which ionize the air and therefore become visible, might explain the observation of truncated luminous beams. Microwaves might explain body paralysis as well.8
In the same chapter, various hypotheses are studied. The study concludes that hoaxes are rare and easily detected. Some nonscientific theories are discarded, such as conspiracy and manipulation by very secret, powerful groups.
Also rejected are paranormal phenomena and collective hallucinations. The hypothesis of secret weapons is also regarded as very improbable, as is intoxication or hysteria during the cold war era, along with natural phenomena.
In the final analysis, we are then left with various extraterrestrial hypotheses. One version has been developed in France by astronomers Jean-Claude Ribes and Guy Monnet, based on the “space islands” concept of American physicist Gerald K. O’Neill, and it is compatible with present-day physics. The astronomers theorized that
Interstellar space travels towards other stars are possible thanks to gigantic spaceship, at subluminic speed (the original idea is from the physicist O’Neill). These spaceships are gigantic units, carrying a full ecosystem and hundreds of thousands pf people for a no-return odyssey to reach the closest star after a 40,000 years long trip. Those giant spaceships get their energy from hydrogen collected from the traveled space and from which energy is extracted by fusion . . .9
Next, the efforts by the independent UFO research organizations in the United States, Great Britain, and Russia are surveyed in the report. In the United States, the media and the polls showed a marked interest and concern of the public, but the official position, especially of the air force, was still one of denial; more precisely, that there is no threat to national security.
That limited definition does not rule out the existence of UFOs; it just states that they pose no threat.
(Actually, declassified documents more recently released under the United States’ Freedom of Information Act paint a very different picture, one of surveillance of nuclear installations by UFOs and the continued study of UFOs by American military and intelligence agencies.)
The report goes on to stress the importance of private, independent UFO research associations in the United States. It mentions the briefing document “Best Available Evidence,” which was sent in 1995 to one thousand leaders in government, science, and the press worldwide, and the Sturrock Panel, a four-day workshop held in 1997 to review UFO evidence, both sponsored by American philanthropist Lawrence Rockefeller.
The report then notes the emergence of alleged insiders into the public spotlight, such as U.S. Army Colonel Philip Corso,*4 a former army intelligence officer, and concludes that his testimony, despite its many critics, might be partially revealing as to the actual situation in the United States.
The report continues with a brief description of the situation in Great Britain, with a special mention of journalist Nick Pope, who ran the British government’s UFO study project from 1991 to 1994, and wonders about the possible existence of secret studies being pursued jointly by British and American services. It also mentions research efforts in Russia, in passing, and the release of some information by the KGB in 1991.
It is important to note that only the U.S. and British governments continue to maintain secrecy where UFOs are concerned. Could it be that perhaps the British, being America’s closest allies, were let in on the Roswell truth?
PART III: UFOS AND DEFENSE
In the third part, the report notes that no overt, hostile actions have been reported in the history of UFO observations or encounters. However, it goes on to say that at least some acts of UFO intimidation have been recorded in France (e.g., the Mirage IV case).
Since the extraterrestrial origin of UFOs cannot be ruled out, the report asserts, it is therefore necessary to study the consequences of that hypothesis at the strategic level, and also at the political, religious, and media/public information levels.
The first chapter of Part III is devoted to prospective strategies, and it begins with fundamental questions: What if UFOs are extraterrestrial? What intentions and what strategies can we deduce from their behavior?
These direct questions open up the most controversial part of the report.
Possible motivations of extraterrestrial visitors are then explored, such as the protection of planet Earth against the dangers of nuclear war, which is suggested, for instance, by the repeated UFO flyovers of nuclear missile sites (as noted in chapter 11, regarding Roswell).
The committee takes the time to ponder over the possible repercussions on the behavior, official or not, of different nations and focuses on the possibility of secret, privileged contacts that might be “attributed to the United States.”
The attitude of the United States is seen as “most strange” since the post–World War II sighting wave of 1947 and the Roswell event. Since that time, the report states, a policy of increasing secrecy seems to have been applied. This, it is asserted, might explain how America acquired such military and technological superiority in the decades following 1950.
This is a fascinating conjecture made by high officials of a foreign government. Many independent researchers have also hypothesized that the U.S. government reverse-engineered UFO technology and that this is why America has so rapidly leaped from one breakthrough to another over the course of the decades following Roswell.
Next, the report poses the question, “What measures must we take now?” The answer offered is that, at the very least, whatever the nature of UFOs, they require “critical vigilance.”
The authors were especially concerned about the risk of “destabilizing manipulations.” They suggested that a kind of “cosmic vigilance” be implemented by the elites, nationally and internationally, in order to prevent any shocking surprises, erroneous interpretations, or hostile manipulations.
COMETA then urged France to strengthen SEPRA and recommended the creation of a committee at the highest level of government to be entrusted with the development of hypotheses, strategies, and preparations and to make cooperative agreements with countries in Europe and elsewhere.
A suggested further step, the report notes, would be that European states and the European Union undertake diplomatic action with the United States within the framework of political and strategic alliances.
A key question is then framed: What situations must we be prepared for? Mentioned are such scenarios as an extraterrestrial move for official contact, discovery of a UFO and alien base on Earth, invasion (deemed improbable) and localized or massive attack, and manipulation or deliberate disinformation aiming at destabilizing other states.
The COMETA Report devotes special attention to “aeronautical implications,” with detailed recommendations aimed at various personnel, such as aircraft crew members, air traffic controllers, weathermen, and engineers. It also makes recommendations at the scientific and technical levels, aimed at developing research with potential benefits for defense and industry. The report further explores the political and religious implications of UFOs, using as a model the perspective of our own exploration of space.
How would we do it? How would we handle contacts with less advanced civilizations?
In fact, that question has already been answered by Western civilizations’ repeated contacts with remote, nontechnological cultures on Earth. The results are always the same; the less developed culture suffers damage, even ruin, as a result of the contact.
COMETA’s concluding statements claim that the physical reality of UFOs under control of intelligent beings is “quasi-certain.” It says that only one hypothesis takes into account the available data: the hypothesis of extraterrestrial visitors. This hypothesis is, of course, unproved, but it has far-reaching consequences. The goals of these alleged visitors remain unknown, but they must be the subject of speculations and prospective scenarios.
In its final recommendations, the COMETA Report stresses the need to:
A final note: the report contains seven appendices, which are worth reading even by highly informed UFOlogists:
CONCLUSION
The COMETA Report is a game changer in the fields of government disclosure and the rational scientific study of UFOs. The French have systematically studied the phenomenon in detail, and that has paved the way for an eventual scientific understanding of our extraterrestrial heritage.