Toutes affaires cessantes, commencez par regarder ceci : hallucinant de précision. Le reportage absolu. Le rêve des blogueurs sans moyens.
Dans ce nouvel article sur le sujet, très repris par la presse mainstream y compris française, nous avons voulu détailler les faits le plus précisément possible afin que, chers amis lecteurs, vous puissiez vous faire votre opinion. Il faut néanmoins vous le dire : Franck Maurin, l'auteur que nous avons sollicité pour cette analyse, rencontré aux dîners ufologiques Nantais (voir ici), m'a souligné que des analystes sceptiques ont tenté d’avancer des hypothèses conventionnelles à ces vidéos : mouches collées sur les caméras des avions, ballons-sondes, confusion avec les tuyères d’un avion pour Gimbal, drones secrets… Mais ces théories ne cadrent pas avec les déclarations concordantes et crédibles des pilotes et radaristes, que Franck Maurin a rassemblé et analysé.
Ovnis : donc, c'est "extra-terrestre"... ou plutôt (voir aussi) "non-humain"...
Quand un ancien Directeur de la DGSE reconnaît qu'aucun des engins apparaissant sur les vidéos déclassifiées de l'armée US ne peut avoir été construit par l'homme, à la fois dans le documentaire Ovnis : une affaire d'États du réalisateur français Dominique Filhol, diffusé en avril 2020 sur la chaîne Planète+) (voir ici le teaser) et sur Paris-Match (voir ici), quand cet ex-Directeur de la DGSE dit que le problème est donc, selon lui: «D'où ça vient», il donne au phénomène Ovni une touche para-officielle. Chers amis lecteurs, vous le savez bien, un directeur du Renseignement, même «ex» (Monsieur Alain Juillet, auquel il vient d'être fait allusion, a occupé le poste de 2001 à 2002), ce n'est pas rien : cela tient un peu du ministre de la défense, des affaires extérieures, il est l'homme censé en savoir le plus sur les sujets «stratégiques» du moment ; et il est aussi considéré comme l'homme le moins humoristique de France (aidé par le fait parce qu'il ne s'exprime jamais). Aussi, la transparence de ses propos a été remarquée et saluée dans certaines sphères médiatiques et ufologiques, celles où l'on s'intéresse aux Unidentified Flying Objets, UFOS, Ovnis en français. Il était logique de faire appel à un analyste érudit de la question pour pousser la question. Franck Maurin n'est certes pas issu du sérail scientifique ou académique, mais est l'auteur d'un livre fort sérieux, Mystères du phénomène Ovni : de la préhistoire à nos jours (réédité en 2016, Editions la Vallée Heureuse, voir ici). Il prépare de nouveaux travaux sur le sujet. Il a prononcé une conférence très pointue sur la déclassification des vidéos américaines aux dîners ufologiques de Nantes, qui m'a beaucoup impressionnée. Il était logique de l'interviewer. Les trois vidéos s'appellent, dans l'ordre chronologique : «Flir1», «Gimbal», «Go Fast». Depuis, à ces trois vidéos s'en sont rajoutées cinq autres : grâce au travail de citoyens américains ayant esté en justice au nom du Transparency Act.
Du dévoilement à la reconnaissance officielle des Ovnis par les USA
L'affaire commence en décembre 2017, quand le New-York Times, "le" media d'investigation US, publie trois vidéos où l'on voit des avions de chasse Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet poursuivre des Ovnis. Surtout, il révèle l'existence d'un programme secret du Pentagone sur le sujet, nommé AATIP (2007- 2012), à la tête duquel se trouvait au sein duquel se trouvait Luis Elizondo (voir ici) : AATIP, soit «Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program», ou «Programme d'identification des menaces aérospatiales avancées». Ce programme répond à un éventail de menaces, naturelles, humaines, mais aussi à celles résultant de la présence d'Ovnis dans notre ciel, avec une orientation technologique très SF : propulsion spatiale, micro-ondes, supraconductivité, propulsion, téléportation, trous de vers, etc. Précision d'importance : dans AATIP, les Ovnis en tant que tels ne monopolisent cependant pas l'ensemble du budget, et leur étude se fait sous le la direction de Robert Bigelow (voir ici), industriel hyper-créatif en lien avec la Nasa. La confirmation finale de l'affaire débusquée par le New-Yort Times est due au journal Popular Mechanics, magazine américain grand public consacré à la science et la technologie, qui mène à son tour un travail d'investigation de premier choix, allant jusqu'à publier des extraits des rapports de Bigelow Aerospace dans un article (voir ici).
Quid des vidéos qui font le buzz ? Analyse de la première, ou «Flir1», partie émergée d'un nombre impressionnant d'engins (80)
La première vidéo diffusée, «Flir1», (voir ici) vient du groupe aéronaval du porte-avions nucléaire USS Nimitz (voir ici). En novembre 2004. Le groupe Nimitz était positionné auprès de la frontière Etats-Unis/Mexique entre San Diego et Los Angeles, à proximité des îles San-Catalina et San-Clemente. L'un des buts semble avoir été, au bout de ces deux semaines, de développer au-dessus de ces eaux une expérience aéronavale qui devait faire revenir les USA au temps où ils enchaînaient les records de vitesse. En attendant, de facto, depuis quinze jours, les radars de la flotte apercevaient des objets inconnus qui arrivaient par grappes à des altitudes allant jusqu'à 80000 pieds (24 km). Visions et constations si inattendues que les radaristes ont commencé par réinitialiser leur matériel. Mais force fut alors de constater que les objets continuaient d'arriver, tombant en un instant de 80000 pieds à 20000 pieds (6 km). Kevin Day, l’un de ces radaristes opérant sur l’USS Princeton (navire appartenant au groupe aéronaval USS Nimitz), a pu estimer les vitesses tenues dans ces trajectoires invraisemblables à environ 38000 km/h. Quand les objets arrivaient à basse altitude, ils alternaient alors les phases de vol stationnaire, d'accélération et de décélération, de tournants à angle droit (insistons sur ce point: de tournants sans ralentir). Les pilotes de F/A-18 ont pu comparer ces trajectoires à des «balles de ping-pong» rebondissant en tous sens.
Focus sur le lieu géographique autour duquel ont été réalisées les vidéos d'Ovnis
L'île de San Catalina est un morceau de Paradis, au bout de nulle part -comme il se doit. Pourtant, elle avait déjà attiré l'attention sur le sujet Ovni. Il y a une dizaine d'années, en effet, la National Geographic Channel avait produit une série intitulée Chasseurs d'Ovnis (UFOs Hunters). L'un des épisodes (voir ici) faisait référence à un accident arrivé à un petit avion qui, en arrivant vers l'île, serait rentré en collision avec un Ovni volant à basse altitude, voire surgissant des flots (je n'ai pu retrouver le moment où l'on en parle dans le documentaire). Catalina est en effet l'un de ces endroits au monde où l'on voit historiquement le plus d'Ovnis, un "hot-spot" majeur dont une érudite, Elisabeth de Caligny, a pu longuement développer l'histoire (en croisant et multipliant les sources livresques, quoique elle ne soit pas allée sur le terrain). De son côté, Franck a souligné que lors de la «bataille de Los-Angeles», en février 1942, la DCA américaine avait pris pour cible une flottille d'Ovnis qui passait au-dessus de Los-Angeles en venant de la mer (en les confondant avec des appareils de chasse japonais).
Les radars du Groupe Nimitz (2004) : autant de réponses que de questions
La portée des radars de Nimitz est-elle de 24 km en altitude seulement, c'est-à-dire la zone du ciel où ont été localisés les Ovnis les plus hauts? Question capitale pour l'origine de ceux-ci. Pour quelles raisons? Rien, en effet, ne semble leur interdire dans leur technologie de venir de l'orbite terrestre, ou d'apparaître soudainement d'une sorte de point Oméga, un peu comme si l'ouvrait une porte dans un coin de ciel -ce que les initiés nomment un portail, qu'ouvrent les engins, en tant que "plate-formes mobiles"; ce qui induit que de tels portails peuvent être ouverts par des "plate-formes fixes"... C'est Star-Gate, en effet! (Cette information n'est ni fantaisiste, ni ésotérique, et la science-fiction a ceci d'éternel qu'elle précède la réalité qu'elle se charge d'écrire à l'avance, avant que la réalité ne prenne le relais et écrive l'histoire. Ces données sont contenues dans l'hyper-sourcé Rapport Milburn, qui rend compte d'un éco-système Renseignement-industrie hyper innovateur, et que j'ai placé dans mon article consacré aux sources référentielles Ufos, que j'enrichis au fil des mois. Il faut que vous lisiez de fond en comble le rapport Milburn, qui est un monument. Voir ici).
Mais revenons à la portée usuelle des radars. Je vous ai donc rajouté deux liens : dans le premier, Thalès in l'Usine Nouvelle (voir ici) montre qu'en 2013 seulement apparaît un engin monté sur chenilles qui détecte des cibles à plus de 470 km de distance et 30 km d'altitude. Dans leur Histoire des radars en France et dans le monde, Jacques Darricau et Yves Blanchard confirment la grandeur de ces possibilités physiques.L'histoire des radars en France et dans le monde : intéressant et utile pour notre sujet (pdf, 2.2 MB) © Jacques Darricau et Yves Blanchard
Cette histoire, très complète, dont est tiré ce texte, nous permet de supposer avec une bonne certitude que les 24 km d'altitude sont dans la limite de la portée maximale des radars de l'USS Nimitz. Mais ceci soulève alors une autre question : comme la couverture radar aérienne des Etats-Unis pour parer à une guerre nucléaire englobe la stratosphère, à laquelle s'ajoute tout le système satellitaire d'alerte et d'observation, les observations du radariste Kevin Day ne nous donnent aucune certitude. En effet, nous aurions la connaissance du début de la trajectoire des objets si nous avions celle des radars balayant la stratosphère.
Car, en effet, un débat agite le monde des «Ufologues» : les engins proviennent-ils de l'espace ou... de bases enterrées. Eh oui, chers lecteurs, je dois vous dire que ces deux hypothèses sont débattues, même si la seconde heurte totalement le sens commun. Mais ici, nous faisons subir une torsion au sens commun, comme vous vous en apercevez. D'où l'intérêt de l'accident isolé découvert par les Ufos hunters du National Geographic. A ceci s'ajoute en plus une troisième hypothèse : l'émersion des engins dans notre dimension, puis l'immersion dans la dimension dont ils sortent. Mais continuons à écouter Franck Maurin : même si, pour le moment, nous n'avons pas de réponses à la question, il remarque que certains des objets évoluaient juste au-dessus des eaux, au-dessus d’une zone de «bouillonnements» de 50 à 100 m de large, d’origine indéterminée.
Dans les vidéos, on voit bien que les Ovnis quittent l'autotrack du radar des avions qui les poursuivent, lequel autotrack détecte une source de chaleur d'un objet, la vidéo montrant un moment un objet qui passe du stationnaire à la vitesse supersonique de Mach 1, ceci instantanément (et ce selon les analyses du magazine Popular Mechanics). Voir aussi le témoignage du pilote vétéran David Fravor, qui, à bord de son F/18 s’est approché de l’Ovni qu'ils surnommeront avec ses coéquipiers, en raison de sa forme, le "Tic Tac" (voir ici l'interview de David). Dans cette circonstance, l’objet fonce alors vers l'avion de Fravor, l’évite, effectue un cercle, puis accélère à plus de environ 6000 km/h jusqu'à «Cap Point». «Cap Point» est le nom de code de l'endroit où les avions devaient se retrouver dans le cadre de l'exercice. Pour les experts du Renseignement, seuls les aviateurs et les ordinateurs de bord possédaient cette information : la trajectoire de l'Ovni montre certainement qu'à un moment il a acquis de lui-même cette information, on ne sait par quel moyen. La réponse au comment de cette information est certainement un autre point capital pour l'analyse de ces appareils. Au final, on ne sait pas si les objets repartent tous dans l'espace... Aucun des éléments dont disposaient les radaristes, aucune des observations des gens qui les scrutaient à la jumelle, ne nous le disent. Toutefois, il est bien clair que nous ne disposons que des descriptions que l'on a bien voulu nous donner... A un moment, cependant, les objets disparaissent : ainsi, un Ovni arrivé à «Cap Point» repart à la vitesse fulgurante de 38 000 km/h vers le ciel... Ces faits sont révélés par le radariste Kevin Day, que nous connaissons bien désormais, et qui opérait sur le navire USS Princeton à proximité du Nimlitz (voir ici son interview). Il est observé que certaines vitesses d’ovnis dépasseraient les 80000 km/h.
Pendant ce temps, sous la mer
Afin de sécuriser les groupes aéronavals, il est de coutume qu'ils soient accompagnés, sous les flots, par des sous-marins. Il en était ainsi bien sûr de l'USS Nimitz. Le sous-marin nucléaire d'attaque USS Louisville l'accompagnait discrètement et a constaté deux objets qui pénétraient dans l'eau et continuaient à y évoluer à 900 km/h... Puis, après, d'autres sous-mariniers ont mentionné qu'ils n'allaient finalement que deux fois plus vite que leur propre sous-marin... Des versions différentes, qui tiennent peut-être au fait qu'ils n'avaient-ils plus franchement le droit de tout dire... C’est peut-être pour cette raison, ajoute Franck, que dans sa version upgradée d'août 2019, le documentaire The Nimitz Encounters Updated USO, réalisé par Dave Beaty, ne fait plus allusion à ce présumé signalement.
Pendant ce temps, très haut au-dessus de la mer
Retour à ce que nous disions en liminaires : comme si les marins suivaient un story-stelling impeccable, Franck Maurin remarque que, certes, le groupe aéronaval USS Nimitz participait à un exercice de routine en ce 14 novembre 2004, fameux jour de la rencontre avec l’Ovni "Tic-Tac", mais deux jours plus tard, à quelques centaines de kilomètres plus loin (donc à un jet de pierre pour des Super Hornet qui voisinent les 2000 km/h), est expérimenté un drone dernier cri, pouvant atteindre les 12000 km/h, le X-43 Scramjet (voir ici, mais lors d'un essai, semble-t-il, de 2017).
Pourquoi les militaires, si « Secret défense », se mettent-ils à parler ? Et en nombre aussi élevé ?
A partir de 2017, en effet, les pilotes se sont retrouvés sur les médias en nombre clairement inhabituel. Sur CNN, par exemple, David Fravor présente ainsi le fameux Tic-Tac, engin d’environ 12 m de long, sans hublot ni système de propulsion apparent ou panaches de fumées. Chad Underwood, autre pilote de F/A-18 ayant approché et filmé l’ovni dans la même journée, déclare dans la presse que les manœuvres et le comportement du tic tac ne sont pas compatibles avec la physique (voir article du New York Magazine). Dans un rapport intitulé «A Forensic Analysis of navy Carrier Strike Group Eleven’s Encounter with an Anomalous Aerial Vehicle», un collectif de scientifiques américains (Scientific Coalition for Ufology) estime que les manœuvres de l’ovni «Tic Tac» conduiraient à faire subir 12000 G à leurs pilotes, sachant qu'un pilote humain peut généralement supporter de 6 à 8G, plus difficilement 10 à 12G dans les cas extrêmes (1G = la pesanteur). Mais pas davantage. En supposant que les données radars soient fiables, les analystes de ce rapport calculent que les accélérations du Tic Tac, pour un aéronef équivalent en taille et masse, nécessiteraient une énergie de 90 GigagWatts (page 18 du rapport). Ces estimations apparaissent édifiantes, car elles surpasseraient la capacité énergétique de toutes les centrales nucléaires française réunies (63 GigaWatts, production installée, données à ce jour). Sur ces bases, des chercheurs envisagent des pistes de réflexion qui se situeraient au-delà de la physique classique et connue (autres dimensions, mécanique quantique, hypothèse extraterrestre de second degré…).
Les propos et témoignages concernant les phénomènes ovnis se libèrent, car ils entrent tout naturellement dans le cadre de l'officialisation du phénomène aux USA et, par ricochet, dans le monde entier (même le Japon se met à développer un protocole de rencontre aérienne). Décembre 2017 : New-York Times. Avril 2019 : l’US Navy nous apprend qu'elle développe un protocole de reconnaissance des Ovnis, puis en septembre, elle admet officiellement les trois vidéos comme inexpliquées (puis huit à présent). Pendant ce temps, le New-York Times, rejoint par le Washington Post, continue l'enquête, peu à peu reprise par l'ensemble des media mainstream, de CNN à Fox News. Résultat, peut-être, de la pression médiatique : en avril 2020, le Pentagone (au départ plutôt réticent et critique, parfois très critique vis-à-vis de Luis Elizondo, qui dirigeait le programme AATIP), reconnaît à son tour les trois vidéos comme «inexpliquées». En plus de ces enquêtes convergentes, Franck nous décrit comment d'autres éléments de contextualisation (qui manquent souvent pour effectuer une analyse globale) s'associent peu à peu pour nous donner un panorama plus précis des faits : les premières vidéos, mais qui n'étaient pas assez longues, sont en effet en soi décontextualisées. Puis nous apprenons par exemple qu’une version plus longue (de 8 à 10 minutes) de la vidéo "Flir1" a circulé pendant une journée sur les réseaux de communication internes des navires USS Nimitz et USS Princeton (source : rapport S.C.U.). Les pilotes et techniciens ayant vu cette version originale (David Fravor, Kevin Day, Jason Turner…) parlent d’une qualité vidéo beaucoup plus élevée où se distinguent très clairement les mouvements erratiques et inexplicables de l’Ovni Tic-Tac. En dépit des demandes de déclassification dans le cadre de la loi F.O.I.A., cette vidéo reste à ce jour classée secret défense aux Etats-Unis. La raison officielle étant que «cela pourrait causer des dommages graves à la sécurité nationale».
De la côte ouest à la côte est des USA : nouvelles rencontres
A ceci, s'ajoutent les propos des pilotes interviewés dans des médias et des documentaires. Mais, surtout, un autre phénomène renforce la contextualité du cas Nimitz, qui cesse d'être un cas typique et unique : le même phénomène se reproduit en effet au large des côtes de l'est de la Virginie et de la Floride, en 2015, où cette fois ci le porte-avions en jeu était le USS Theodore Roosevelt. Anecdotiquement (à ce niveau, bien sûr), une nouvelle forme d'Ovni apparaît un moment, plus surprenante encore que le «Tic-Tac» : une sphère enchâssée dans un cube (témoignage du pilote Ryan Grave). Il est aussi question d’autres objets volants inconnus aux performances inexplicables en termes de manœuvres (vols stationnaires suivis d’accélérations hypersoniques, virages à pleine vitesse, évolutions à hautes altitudes…) et d’autonomie (supérieure à douze heures selon les témoins).
Mais dans ces deux affaires, combien avons-nous d'objets en tout : selon les radaristes de l'USS Princeton concernant les incidents du Nimitz, cela dépend des fois ; parfois, soudainement, 2 ou plus ; d'autres fois, le maximum était de 20... En tout, on arrive à 80 objets pour le seul Nimitz. A ce titre, on consultera aussi avec attention les propos du pilote Ryan Graves (voir ici le reportage qu'en donne le New-York Times). Ou encore, du même pilote, (voir ici). Dans une autre interview sur TV History, Ryan Graves signale par ailleurs qu’il existe aussi une version longue de la vidéo Gimbal, non diffusée, où se distingue un groupe d’Ovnis effectuer un mouvement synchronisé. Quant à la vidéo de l'affaire Go Fast de 2015, elle donne ceci : voir ici.
Progrès technique dans les radars et instruments d'observation
Entre 2004 et 2015, Franck souligne qu'il y a eu un remarquable progrès dans les technologies d'observations des phénomènes Ovni, lesquels ne se tiennent pas toujours dans la sphère du visible, ou/et de l'infrarouge. Si les épisodes mentionnés dans les affaires de 2004 et de 2015 développent des effets radars, je me permets de rajouter personnellement qu’il ne semble pas toujours en être de même : cela peut être pourquoi, par exemple, Thalès a développé dans l'une de ses usines de la région parisienne un radar dit passif, qui utilise les trous, les «creux», créés dans le smog électromagnétique pour détecter les objets les plus furtifs. Au niveau franco-français, par exemple, un article de Ouest France intitulé «Thalès renforce son ancrage près de Rennes», rapporte ceci : «Dans l'ensemble des données, de plus en plus nombreuses, fournies par les radars militaires, nous traquons les anomalies.» Bien évidemment, le déplacement d'un Ovni sur Rennes et ailleurs est une anomalie sur laquelle il devient peu à peu possible de lever le brouillard. Les progrès des radars entre 2005 et 2016 sont exponentiels. Pour qui s'intéresserait de plus près aux interprétations techniques que nous essayons de rendre, un ex-pilote de Rafale, Pierre-Henri Chuet (formé entre autres par l'US Navy, ex de la Navale), a produit une vidéo intitulée : Vidéos d'Ovnis déclassifiées : analyse des images avec un ancien pilote de chasse (voir ici). Datée d'avril 2020, vous ne perdrez pas votre temps à la regarder. A voir également : Joe Rogan Podcast.
Luis Elizondo, Alain Juillet : en guise de pré-conclusion
Laissons peut-être la pré-conclusion à Luis Elizondo, qui a dirigé le programme AATIP : je vous laisse travailler. Et je tiens à vous mettre quelques phrases prononcées au débottté par Alain juillet, lors du débat autour du documentaire Ovnis: une affaire d'Etats, produit par Canal Plus, sur le site du Mufon France (voir ici) -une association qui fut menée par l'éminent Pascal Fechner, et dont je tiens à souligner le très intéressant travail (même si, aujourd'hui en 2022 je vous conseillerai plutôt Explorer Lab, sur You Tube, avec l'excellentissime Baptiste).
Alain Juillet : «Les premiers qui m'ont attiré l'attention sur ces phénomènes mal identifiés, ou non identifiés, ce sont les gens de l'association 3AF [une association de professionel spécialiste de l'aéronautique], avec qui dans les années 2004-2005, quand j'étais à l'intelligence économique, on avait pu échanger.[...] au départ on était parti sur d'autres problèmes, à savoir des problèmes aériens de propulsion, des problèmes où il y a actuellement des problèmes de développement dans l'espace de l'aéronautique [...] et [c'est] devenu de plus en plus une réalité qui s'appuyait sur des faits de moins en moins discutables, si vous voulez. Et ça, je crois que c'est cette réalité crédible, qui fait qu'on rentre aujourd'hui dans une époque on ne peut pas nier le problème, on ne peut pas jeter ce problème là dehors en disant ''mais non, c'est des fumisteries, c'est des visions de professeur Tournesol '', attention danger. [...] Et le deuxième, que je voudrais dire, c'est une chose que j'ai faite, car moi je suis aussi un homme du renseignement, c'est ... j'ai appris une chose dans ma vie dans le Renseignement, c'est que un secret ne reste jamais un secret longtemps. [...] Or, ce que je constate, et ne je suis pas le seul, ce que je constate aujourd'hui, c'est qu'il n'y a pas depuis un grand pays dans le monde, aucun, les Etats-Unis, la Russie, la Chine, où vous voudrez, aucun grand pays n'a laissé sortir volontairement ou involontairement des informations montrant qu'ils maîtrisaient ce type de problème, soit dans des engins volants, je dirais, humains, pilotés, soit, parce qu'en plus compte tenu des parcours erratiques de ces engins ils peuvent être difficilement, car les gens sous les fameux G mouraient, car même là, aucun pays ne posséderaient des drônes. [D'où] le troisième problème : c'est d'où ça vient. Et là c'est autre chose. »
Sur le plan technique, je m'efface naturellement... A plusieurs reprises, l'ex-pilote de Rafale dont Franck Maurin m'a signalé l'excellente analyse, Pierre-Henri Chuet, a remarqué (dans le cas de l'USS Nimitz) que, quel que soit le nombre des Ovnis qui évoluaient et sortaient en grappes, donc en flottilles, il y avait une absence totale d'anxiété, de stress des pilotes. Propos peut-être à modérer, où Franck Maurin souligne que plusieurs pilotes ont déclaré avoir eu peur en voyant le Tic-Tac, même si celui-ci n’a jamais démontré d’intentions offensives. A cela, s'ajoute lors du débat du Mufon, l'avis d'Alain Juillet, sur la non dangerosité du phénomène. Mais, et c'est mon avis, cette opinion apparaît en contradiction avec le développé de l'acronyme AATIP : «Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program», ou «Programme d'identification des menaces aérospatiales avancées». Pour un programme orienté Ovnis, il y a là une curieuse dissonance cognitive entre les réactions-terrains des pilotes, forcément briefés par leur hiérarchie, et plutôt décontractées en général, et les réactions au niveau du pouvoir fédéral.
Je vous ai donc mis un rapport d'étape de Bigelow Aerospace. Y apparaît un Ovni triangulaire, forme qui, semble-t-il, n'a pas été évoquée par les témoins des phénomènes sur les deux groupes aéronavals. Pour ma part, j'ai la faiblesse de considérer que les typologies d'aéronefs renvoient à des origines sociales ou civilisationnelles différentes: outre l'origine des appareils qui ont survolé le Nimitz et le Théodore Roosevelt, cette typologie triangulaire à laquelle fait implicitement référence Robert Bigelow mériterait certainement que l'on s'y arrête davantage. Quoi qu'il en soit, Franck Maurin, par son sérieux à identifier, réunir et croiser toutes les sources concernant l'affaire AATIP, contribue à lever le voile. Je me permets de vous redonner le titre de son livre, que je vous recommande chaudement : Les mystères du phénomène Ovni : de la préhistoire à nos jours (voir ici).
4. UFO Papers 4. AATIP, UFOs, Pentagon and Extra-terrestrials: so they exist?
First June 2020. Chapô : When a former Director of the DGSE admits that no device on the declassified UFO videos of the US army is human, it is because it is "Extra-terrestrial". No ? Or, as Mary Poppins would say, of supercalifragilisticexpialidocious origin. Back with a specialist on the raw facts detailed with Okham's razor.
Start by looking at this: mind-blowing accuracy. Absolute reporting, a blogger's dream without resources. In this new article on the subject, we wanted to detail the facts as precisely as possible so that, dear readers, you can make up your own mind. Nevertheless, we must tell you: Franck Maurin, the author solicited for this analysis, met at the Nantes ufology dinners, pointed out to me that skeptical analysts have tried to put forward conventional hypotheses to these videos: flies stuck on the cameras of the planes, balloon probes, confusion with the nozzles of a plane for "Gimbal", secret drones... But these theories do not fit in with the concordant and credible declarations of the pilots and the radar operators.
UFOs: so it's "extraterrestrial"?
When an ex-DG of the DGSE recognizes that none of the devices appearing on declassified videos of the US army can have been built by man, both in the documentary UFOs: An Affair of States by the French director Dominique Filhol, broadcast in April 2020 on the channel Planète + (see the teaser); and on Paris-Match, when this ex-Director of the DGSE says that the problem is therefore, according to him: "Where does it come from? Dear readers, as you know, a Director of Intelligence, even an "ex" one (Alain Juillet, to whom we have just alluded, held the position from 2001 to 2002), is not a small thing: he is the man who is supposed to know the most about the "strategic" subjects of the moment. Also, the transparency of his words has been noticed and praised in certain media and ufological spheres, those where people are interested in Unidentified flying objects. It was logical to call upon a scholar to push the issue. Franck Maurin is not from the scientific or academic seraglio, but is the author of a serious book, Mysteries of the UFO Phenomenon: from prehistory to the present day (2016, Éditions la vallée heureuse). He gave a talk on the declassification of American videos at the Nantes ufology dinners, which impressed me. It was logical to interview him. The three videos are called, in chronological order: "Flir 1", "Gimbal", "Go Fast". Since then, five more have been added, thanks to the work of Americans who have been sued under the Transparency Act.
From the unveiling to the recognition of UFOs by the USA
The affair thus began in December 2017, with the New-York Times revealing the existence of a secret Pentagon program on the subject, "AATIP" (2007-2012), at the head of which was Luis Elizondo: AATIP stands for "Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program." It responds to a range of threats, natural, human, but also, with a very SF technological orientation: space propulsion, microwaves, superconductivity, propulsion, teleportation, wormholes, etc. Note: in AATIP, UFOs as such do not monopolize the entire budget. The study is carried out under the direction of Robert Bigelow, a space industrialist. The final confirmation of the affair uncovered by the New-York Times is due to Popular Mechanics, an American magazine dedicated to science and technology, which in turn carries out a first-rate investigation, going so far as to publish extracts from Bigelow Aerospace's reports.
What about videos that make the buzz? Emerging parts of an impressive number of machines (80!)
The first video, Flir 1, comes from the naval battle group of the nuclear aircraft carrier USS Nimitz). November 2004: the Nimitz Group was positioned near the US/Mexico border between San Diego and Los Angeles, near the San-Catalina and San-Clemente islands. One of the goals seems to have been, at the end of these two weeks, to develop over these waters a naval aeronautical experiment that would bring the USA back to the time when it was setting speed records. In the meantime, for the last two weeks, the fleet's radars have been seeing unknown objects arriving in clusters at altitudes of up to 80,000 feet (24 km). These sightings and observations were so unexpected that the radar operators began by resetting their equipment. But then it became clear that the objects kept coming, dropping from 80,000 feet to 20,000 feet (6 km) in an instant. Kevin Day, one of the radar operators on the USS Princeton (a ship belonging to the USS Nimitz battle group), was able to estimate the speeds held in these improbable trajectories at about 38,000 km/h. When the objects arrived at low altitude, they alternated phases of hovering, acceleration, deceleration, turning at right angles (let us insist: at right angles, without slowing down). The F/A-18 pilots compared these trajectories to "ping-pong balls" bouncing in all directions.
Focus on the place where the UFO videos were made
San Catalina Island is a piece of Paradise, at the end of nowhere - as it should be. However, it had already drawn attention to the subject of UFOs. About ten years ago, the National Geographic Channel produced a series entitled UFOs Hunters. One of the episodes referred to an accident that happened to a small plane that, while arriving to the island, collided with a low-flying UFO - even one that appeared from the water (I could not find the moment when it was mentioned in the documentary). Could it be that Santa Catalina is one of those places where we historically see many UFOs? For his part, Franck pointed out that during the "Battle of Los Angeles", in February 1942, the American flak had targeted a flotilla of UFOs passing over Los Angeles from the sea (mistaking them for Japanese fighter planes. Then perhaps shooting down one).
The Nimitz Group radars (2004) ...
Is the range of the Nimitz radars only 24 km in altitude, that is to say the zone of the sky where the highest UFOs have been located? This is a crucial question for the origin of these. For what reasons? Nothing, in fact, seems to prohibit their technology from coming from the earth's orbit, or from appearing suddenly from a sort of Omega point, as if they were opening a door in a corner of the sky. On the usual range of radars, I have added two links: in the first, Thales in L'usine Nouvelle shows that in 2013 a track-mounted device appeared that detected targets at a distance of more than 470 km and an altitude of 30 km. In their Histoire des radars en France et dans le monde, Jacques Darricau and Yves Blanchard confirm these figures.
This text allows us to assume with certainty that the 24 km of altitude is within the range of the radars of the USS Nimitz. This raises another question: as the air radar coverage of the United States to counter a nuclear war includes the stratosphere, to which is added the satellite system of warning and observation, the observations of the radarist Kevin Day do not give any certainty. Indeed, we would have the knowledge of the beginning of the trajectory of the objects if we had that of the radars scanning the stratosphere. Indeed, a debate agitates the world of Ufologists: do the objects come from space or... from buried bases (!). Yes, dear readers, I must tell you that these two hypotheses are debated, even if the second one totally (and even more) offends common sense. To this is added a third hypothesis: the emersion of the machines in our dimension, then the immersion in the dimension from which they come out. But let's continue to listen to Franck Maurin: even if, for the moment, we don't have any answers to the question, he notes that some of the objects were evolving just above the water, above a zone of "boiling" 50 to 100 m wide. In the videos, we see that the UFOs leave the autotrack of the radar of the planes that are pursuing them, which autotrack detects a heat source of an object, the video showing one moment an object that goes from stationary to the supersonic speed of Mach 1 - instantaneously (and this according to the analyses of the magazine Popular Mechanics). See also the testimony of the veteran David Fravor who, aboard his F/18, approached the UFO that he and his teammates nicknamed the "Tic-Tac" (see the interview of David). The object rushes towards Fravor, avoids him, makes a circle, then accelerates to more than 6 000 km/h until "Cap-Point". "Cape Point" is the code name for where the planes were to meet in the exercise. For the intelligence experts, only the airmen and the on-board computers had this information: the trajectory of the UFO shows that at some point it acquired this information. The answer to the how of this acquisition is a crucial point. In the end, we do not know if the objects all go back into space... None of the elements which the radarists had, none of the observations of the people who scrutinized them with binoculars, say it. However, it is quite clear that we only have the descriptions that they wanted to give... At one point, however, the objects disappear: thus, a UFO arrived at Cape Point and returned to the sky at the lightning speed of 38 000 km/h... These facts are revealed by the radar operator Kevin Day, whom we know, who was operating on the USS Princeton near the Nimitz. It is observed that some UFOs exceed 80,000 km/h.
Meanwhile, under the sea... and far above
In order to secure the naval air groups, they were followed, under the waves, by submarines. This was the case for the USS Nimitz. The nuclear attack submarine USS Louisville accompanied it discreetly and noticed two objects that penetrated the water and continued to move at 900 km/h... Then, afterwards, other submariners mentioned that they were finally only going twice as fast as their own submarine... Different versions, which may be due to the fact that they were no longer allowed to tell everything... It is perhaps for this reason, adds Franck, that in its upgraded version of August 2019, the documentary The Nimitz Encounters Updated USO, directed by Dave Beaty, no longer alludes to this alleged report. As if the sailors were following a story-stelling, Franck Maurin notes that, certainly, the USS Nimitz air group was participating in a routine exercise on this November 14, 2004, the famous day of the encounter with the Tic-Tac UFO... But two days later, a few hundred kilometers away (thus a stone's throw away for Super Hornets that are close to 2,000 km/h), a state-of-the-art drone, capable of reaching 12,000 km/h, is being experimented with, the X-43.
Why are military personnel starting to talk?
Starting in 2017, in fact, pilots found themselves on the media in unusual numbers. On CNN, for example, David Fravor thus presents the Tic-Tac, about 12 m long, with no window or apparent propulsion system, plumes of smoke. Chad Underwood, another F/A-18 pilot who approached and filmed the UFO on the same day, declares that the maneuvers and behavior of the Tic-Tac are incompatible with physics (see the New-York Times article). In a report entitled A Forensic Analysis of Navy Carrier Strike Group Eleven's Encounter with an Anomalous Aerial Vehicle, a group of American scientists (Scientific Coalition for Ufology) estimates that the Tic-Tac's maneuvers would lead to 12,000 G's on their pilots, knowing that a human pilot can generally withstand 6 to 8 G's, more hardly 10 to 12 G's (1 G = gravity). Assuming that the radar data are reliable, the analysts of this report calculate that the accelerations of the Tic-Tac, for an aircraft equivalent in size and mass, would require an energy of 90 Gigagwatts (page 18 of the report). This is an edifying estimate, since it would exceed the energy capacity of all the French nuclear power plants combined. On this basis, researchers are considering avenues of reflection that go beyond classical physics (other dimensions, quantum mechanics...).
The comments and testimonies concerning UFO phenomena are liberated, because they enter into the framework of the officialization of the phenomenon in the USA - and, by ricochet, in the whole world (even Japan starts to develop a protocol of aerial encounter). December 2017: New-York Times. April 2019: the US Navy tells us that it is developing a UFO recognition protocol. Then, in September, it officially admits the three videos as unexplained (then eight now). Meanwhile, the New York Times, joined by the Washington Post, continued the investigation, which was gradually taken up by all the mainstream media, from CNN to Fox News. Result: in April 2020, the Pentagon (initially rather reticent and critical), sometimes very critical of Luis Elizondo (who directed the AATIP program), recognized in turn the three videos as "unexplained". In addition to these converging investigations, Franck describes how other elements of contextualization (which are often lacking in order to carry out a global analysis) gradually combine to give us a more precise panorama of the facts: the first videos, which were not long enough, are in fact decontextualized "in themselves". Then we learn, for example, that a longer version (from eight to ten minutes) of the video "Flir 1" circulated one day on the internal communication networks of the ships USS Nimitz and USS Princeton (source: S.C.U. report). Pilots and technicians who have seen this original version (David Fravor, Kevin Day, Jason Turner...) speak of a much higher quality video where the erratic and inexplicable movements of the Tic-Tac UFO can be clearly distinguished. Despite requests for declassification under the F.O.I.A. law, this video remains classified as Secret-Defense in the United States. Official reason: "It could cause serious damage to national security".
From the West Coast to the East Coast of the USA: new encounters
To this, we can add the words of the pilots interviewed in the media and in documentaries. But, above all, another phenomenon reinforces the contextuality of the Nimitz case, which ceases to be a typical and unique case: the same phenomenon is indeed reproduced off the coasts of eastern Virginia and Florida, in 2015, where this time the aircraft carrier in play was the USS Theodore Roosevelt. Anecdotally (at this level, of course), a new form of UFO appears for a moment, even more surprising than the Tic-Tac: a sphere embedded in a cube (testimony of pilot Ryan Grave). It is also a question of other unknown flying objects with inexplicable performances in terms of maneuvers (stationary flights followed by hypersonic accelerations, full speed turns, evolutions at high altitudes...) and autonomy (greater than 12 hours). But in these two cases, how many objects do we have? According to the radarists of the USS Princeton concerning the Nimitz incidents, it depends: sometimes, suddenly, two or more; once, twenty... In all, there were eighty objects for the Nimitz alone. In this respect, we can also consult the words of pilot Ryan Graves (see the report given by the New-York Times). Or from the same pilot. In another interview on TV History, Ryan Graves points out that there is also a long version of the Gimbal video, which has not been broadcast, where a group of UFOs are seen making a synchronized movement.
Progress in radar and observation instruments
For 2004-2015, Franck underlines the progress in the technologies of observation of UFOs, which hardly stay in the sphere of the visible, or/and of the infrared. If the episodes of the 2004 and 2015 cases develop radar effects, I would personally add that it does not always seem to be so: this may be why, for example, Thales has developed in one of its factories in the Paris region a passive radar, which uses the holes, the "hollows", created in the electromagnetic smog to detect stealth objects. An article in Ouest France, entitled "Thales strengthens its foothold near Rennes," reports, "In the growing body of data provided by military radars, we track anomalies." Obviously, the displacement of a UFO over Rennes is an anomaly on which it is gradually becoming possible to lift the fog. The progress of radar between 2005 and 2016 is exponential. For those who are more interested in the technical interpretations that we are trying to render, a former Rafale pilot, Pierre-Henri Chuet (trained by the US Navy, among others), has produced a video entitled: UFO videos declassified: analysis of images with a former fighter pilot. Dated April 2020, you won't waste your time. Also see: Joe Rogan Podcast.
Alain Juillet confirms
Alain Juillet, in the debate following the documentary UFOs: State Secrets, on the Mufon France site, declared: "The first people who drew my attention to these poorly identified or unidentified phenomena were the people of the 3AF association, with whom in the years 2004-2005, when I was in economic intelligence, we were able to exchange. [...] at the beginning, we started with other problems, namely aerial problems of propulsion, problems where there are currently problems of development in aeronautics space [...] and [it] became more and more a reality which was based on less and less debatable facts, if you like. And that, I believe that it is this credible reality, which makes that we enter today in an era where we cannot deny the problem, we cannot throw this problem out by saying "but no, it is smoke, it is visions of professor Tournesol", attention danger. [...] And the second thing I would like to say is something I have done, because I am also a man of intelligence, it is ... I have learned one thing in my life in intelligence, that a secret never stays a secret for long. [...Now, what I see, and I'm not the only one, what I see today, is that there is no major country in the world, none, the United States, Russia, China, wherever you want, no major country has voluntarily or involuntarily let out information showing that they have mastered this type of problem, either in, I would say, human, piloted flying machines, or, because in addition, given the erratic paths of these machines, they can hardly be human, because people under the famous Gs would die, because even then, no country would have drones. [Hence] the third problem: it's where it comes from. And that's another thing."
On several occasions, Pierre-Henri Chuet, the ex-Rafale pilot whose analysis Franck Maurin pointed out to me, has noticed (USS Nimitz) that, whatever the number of UFOs that evolved and came out in clusters, in flotillas, there was an absence of anxiety, of stress among the pilots. This statement should perhaps be moderated, because Franck Maurin emphasizes that several pilots declared that they were afraid when they saw the Tic-Tac - even if it never showed any offensive intentions. In addition, during the debate of the Mufon, Alain Juillet's opinion on the non-dangerousness of the phenomenon was added. But, and this is my opinion, this opinion is in contradiction with the development of the acronym AATIP: "Advanced aerospace threat identification program". For a program oriented towards UFOs, there is a curious dissonance between the reactions on the ground of the pilots, which are rather relaxed in general, and the reactions at the federal level. I have put here a progress report from Bigelow Aerospace. It shows a triangular UFO, a shape which, it seems, was not mentioned by the witnesses of the phenomena on the two aircraft groups. For my part, I have the weakness to consider that the typologies of aircraft refer to different social origins: in addition to the origin of the aircraft that flew over the Nimitz and the Theodore Roosevelt, this typology to which R. Bigelow refers would deserve to be studied. Bigelow refers to is worth examining.
5. UFO Papers 5. The Triangles of the Night
July 26, 2020. Chapô: "Peaceful, we are peaceful, do not be afraid. We will come to see you even more often." How could such a sentence, heard
by a witness to the passage of a triangular UFO is possible?
Return on an investigation out of the common.
Hereafter: Daniel Robin's book. A turning point.
Hereafter: UFOs in the shape of a triangle over the town of Munibung Hill.
These words, heard by a witness, whom I had interviewed at length, saying after saying, trying many times to take him at fault, is reported by Daniel Robin in his book Les Triangles de la nuit, enquête sur un phénomène inquiétant (Éditions Le Temps présent, 2018). To understand it, we must place his steps in those of this group of tenacious investigators who reported these unusual facts, decontextualized from common reality - so... unreal. "I believe," writes the author on page 27, "that it is high time to warn our fellow citizens about the seriousness of the situation and to tell them what is really happening in our airspace [...] I believe, in fact, that the sooner the public is informed, the better they will realize what has to happen. Unlike the United States, where there is a Transparency Act, allowing citizens to appeal against the secrecy of information, and where there is a distaste for lies and concealment, France is a centralized, closed state. The tradition of the Secret-Defense marks with its imprimatur any information on the subject. To underscore this, the DCRI (formerly the RG/DST and future DGSI) had, in 2013, attempted to censor a Wikipedia article on the Pierre-sur-Haute radio station (as part of an investigation for "compromising the Secret-defense" conducted by the anti-terrorist section of the Paris Prosecutor's Office). In addition to this, unlike in the United States, there is a conformism of science itself, which delegitimizes UFO subjects: it is necessary that from the USA comes a form of "Disclosure", that over there, in the middle of Silicon Valley, science and technological firms rush into the open gaps, so that our mainstream media, certain scientists perhaps, industrialists such as Thales and, perhaps, tomorrow such as Dassault, and certainly today the General Directorate of Armaments (DGA), tackle these subjects. This context constitutes an enormous obstacle to citizen investigation. However, this investigation possesses an inertial force that is probably superior to the scientific and media inertia of the French: that of the implacable force of facts. Illustration.
Beyond the Nimitz case, the statistical scope of the "UFO" phenomenon in the world. Nimitz, a simple anecdote?
What is the statistical scope of UFO sightings? This is the question addressed in Daniel Robin's book, but he is forced to recognize that the very small structures that carry out investigations do not have the compilatory and logarithmic power of the Gafas and the NSA, even if the DGSE has considerably increased its computer power - and that, from this point of view, geo-spatial surveillance in France is active, very well documented, and very fine in its analysis of the data from all aerial and spatial phenomena, among which unidentified aerospace phenomena necessarily figure. But these last statistics are classified and we have to fall back on other series, not so dusty, fragmentary and doubtful as one might think. Analysis, doubts, certainties and criticisms in passing.
1 - The first and least questionable of these sources is the database of the Centre national d'études spatiales, which gathers a part of the statistics of observations from the 1970s to today within the framework of Geipan. Of the 2,839 cases reported to their investigators, and investigated, 3.5% are referenced "as unidentified aerial phenomena". But it is just indicated: "[these cases] correspond to investigations that did not allow for any explanation"! 2 - What are the other most legitimate statistical bases? On this subject, page 13, Daniel Robin's preface (Claude Lavat) writes: "The latest world statistics [April 2018 - source Mufon176] concerning the cases retained after elimination of misunderstandings and other parasitic noise, show, for a total of 640 UFOs observed, 66 triangular UFOs, that is to say 10% of the cases for a classification comprising 15 morphological types. The triangular UFOs thus represent a non-negligible class numerically, not only from a quantitative point of view, but also qualitatively. "In 1994, Robert Bigelow suggested that we work in cooperation with American UFO associations such as the Center for Ufos studies (CUFOS) and the Center for UFO Research (Naufof). Robert Bigelow, an industrialist very clearly committed to the conquest of space, much appreciated by NASA and DARPA (the US Army's research funding center) is not exactly a joker. He knows Jacques Vallée very well. Science is statistical. A census of UFO cases worthy of the name was therefore necessary: we see that since 1969 the cases observed by Mufon have reached nearly 105,000. 105,000 cases have therefore been observed by Mufon in the United States for 10 million square kilometers (the European antennas of Mufon are more recent), to be compared with the 100 (101, in fact) "D cases" reported in France by the Centre national d'études spatiales and its antenna, Geipan, for 500,000 square kilometers. The lack of seriousness is not in the USA, it is quite obvious.
It is therefore largely thanks to the Mufon that we have been able to establish the nomenclature of objects observed in our skies since 1947: this table, published by Ovnis direct.com (the Ovnis investigation site) shows the types of craft, before the appearance of triangular UFOs. It does not come from the Mufon team itself, but represents a detailed compilation by Bruce Sterling, science-fiction author and contributor to Wired (see here177), a magazine that is connected to emerging technologies and whose fascinating history can be read on Wikipedia (see here178). "Wired" means "hip", "wired", as well as "edgy".
Hereafter: model of UFO silhouettes. Bruce Sterling
3 - Jacques Vallée reports in the following facts (Science interdite, journal 1957-1969). In June 1961, he was hired by the Service de satellites artificiels based at the Meudon observatory. On page 51, he notes: "It happens that I observe objects that remain unidentified. Thus, on July 11 at 22 h 35, I saw a satellite brighter than the second magnitude. I had the opportunity to do some pointing. On another occasion, several of us recorded no less than eleven points. The next morning, Muller, with all the pettiness of a warrant officer, simply confiscated the tape and destroyed it [...] - ''Why don't we send the data to the Americans? Why don't we send the data to the Americans?'' [who were already interested], I asked him. He shrugged his shoulders. The Americans wouldn't care about us. One morning, Muller read us parts of a letter he had just opened. Now its author was none other than Aimé Michel [...]. You see'', said Muller with contempt, ''here is another letter for the file of the insane''. Here I have put you the highly trustworthy site where enthusiasts are trying to collect the work of Aimé Michel, an exceptional man who has unfortunately vanished forever (see here179). As a result of this reaction, which did not conform to the scientific method, Jacques Vallée left France and began an outstanding work, scientifically - but also entrepreneurially, notably in Silicon Valley. He was associated, in a phase of his work, with Professor J. Allen Hynek. The latter served as scientific advisor to the United States Air Force on the UFO question for a quarter of a century (1947-1969). And on the epic of which a film was released. A little known page develops the biography of this man (see here180). We will find Jacques Vallée in the background in the revelations of the New-York Times in 2017 (he was or is part of the board of Bigelow Aerospace). By March 1974, in any case, the astronomer-computer scientist-mathematician-capitalist/risker had classified more than 3,000 cases... of landings with close-up views of witnesses. So half a century ago: I suggest you imagine what has happened since. More complete statistics have been requested, in the United States itself, by important people of the political establishment. But on this subject a spokesman for the U.S. Senate, John W. McComack, stated in January 1965: "I do not believe that the Air Force has provided all available information on UFOs. One cannot ignore so many unquestionable sources". Evidence of hidden statistics certainly much more complete and complex than those I mention. 4 - We can also have an idea of the extent of the UFO phenomenon, in an anecdotal way, according to an anecdote from Science interdite, by Jacques Vallée. In the USSR, a committee, the Stolariov committee, which sat in the Kremlin in the 1970s, had the goal of creating a specific office for studies on UFOs. But it lacked two signatures to be created. Two of its members, Kasantsev and Ziguel, presented themselves to the Minister of Air: "'Very interesting', said the latter, 'what can I do for you? What would be useful'', said Ziguel, ''would be to ask if your men have seen unknown objects that they may not have officially reported. Good idea, comrade, it is a simple thing. The minister presses a button, an officer arrives, stands at attention, and the minister dictates: ''Order to all bases in the Soviet Union: report immediately any sightings of unidentified flying objects by your personnel. Ziguel and Kazantsev left the Kremlin delighted, with the promise that they would be kept informed. Forty-eight hours later, the committee had ceased to exist. The ministry had been overwhelmed with 15,000 reports. The bureaucrats suddenly realized the enormity of the problem. Military secrecy had fallen on the whole affair [page 313]." Phew! 5 - Daniel Robin reports the statistics of Nuforc, National UFO reporting center from 1960 to 2000, those noted by a well-known ufologist, Gildas Bourdais (see here181): from 35 cases in 1960 to 230 in 2000, that is to say an increase of 1,500% in forty years. The Nuforc was founded by Robert J. Cribble in 1974. He established another list where the "Triangles of the night" appear in number, a figure which illustrates the importance of this work (see http://www.nuforc.org, 2020):
Hereafter: list with the "Triangles", almost at par with the "Saucers": © NUFORC
We realize that with more than 8,000 testimonies, the Triangles are now almost equal to the famous UFOs that have been called saucers, let's say of circular shape, for nearly 11,000 observations. In the USA alone. Daniel Robin wanted to remain minimalist in his book, which is already very disturbing, only reporting statistics from Nuforc in the most careful and certain way possible, from 1960 to 2000: from 35 cases of triangular UFOs in 1960 to 230 in 2000, that is to say an increase of 1500%. The Nuforc site, heavy and impractical to excavate, conceals many other elements. But its methodology is not well known. At Mufon, Bigelow's presence is a guarantee of seriousness... here, we would say that we observe the same trends, the same magnitude of the phenomenon. But what is the methodological bias? 5 - We must therefore return to Jacques Vallée in his book Autres dimensions: chroniques d'un contact avec un autre monde. Indeed, the number of UFOs recorded poses a problem, as if they were telling us, in an underlying way, that they lived among us. Obviously, this is an absurd a priori, and here is how Jacques Vallée has fueled the debate in the appendix of his book, in an article published by the Journal of Scientific Exploration: "Five arguments against the extraterrestrial origin of UFOs". After having indicated that between 3,000 and 10,000 cases of close encounters were known, and having averaged them at 5,000 (we are then in 1989, thirty-one years ago, that is to say a third of a century), he writes: "In fact Poher [the founder of Geipan] and I concluded in 1975 (from different databases) that the geographical distribution of close encounters reflects a concern to avoid the most populated areas. By following this reasoning, taking into account the distribution of the little populated zones and those which are strongly populated, we can multiply our estimate by a factor of ten, and we obtain the figure of one million landings. [This estimate does not take into account another characteristic of the phenomenon: the fact that it occurs mostly at night. [In other words, when everyone is in bed. He then develops the theme of the distribution of the phenomenon of apparitions, to end up with a peak around 3 am. The peak, the time, that is to say 3 a.m., everything agrees for Broceliande. The only point on which I differ, but perhaps Jacques Vallée has changed his mind, is that the type of UFOs that I observed, as well as my twenty or so witnesses (but we could easily gather about sixty), do not appear much in town. However, I have been told, via the newspaper Le Parisien, of a UFO over Maisons-Alfort heading towards the Bois de Vincennes - and I have seen one over Les Halles.
The UFO phenomenon, massive, spread over time, gives, perhaps, the illusion of a contemporary rise in statistics since the means we have did not exist before the last World War (like radar, quite simply). The statistics of the Cnes are underestimated by a factor of 50 to 100. Our only pre-documentary shows from 2006 to 2019 on the only forest of Broceliande at least twenty cases, that is to say on 200 square kilometers, without counting the counts of UFO-investigation and Daniel Robin. In Broceliande, there are in fact more than forty cases. The phenomenon observed by Jacques Vallée avoids populated areas and is rather widespread in natural areas, which are currently shrinking (which is consistent with the number of observations made in the forest of Broceliande, which is being nibbled away to the east by the suburbanization of Rennes, and all around by industrial agriculture). But, and this is what contrasts (or completes) (with) what Jacques Vallée wrote, it is that the UFO-Investigation team has begun to report more and more observations of triangular devices above the hyper-centers of cities and their peri-urbanity. Now, their morphological type, the Triangle, is very different from the old nomenclatures, as can be those of a MIG-21 of the ex-USSR and a Super-Hornet of the USA. These observations will help to better situate the interest of Daniel Robin's work, its originality, the fact that the subtitle is Investigation on a disturbing phenomenon.
Daniel Robin's book
Published in 2018, therefore the year after the discovery by the New-York Times that the Pentagon was continuing to investigate UFOs, and this just before the AATIP revelations, Daniel Robin's book is divided into five chapters and devoted to a type of UFO, the Triangles: 1 - The first chapter is a comparison with human aircraft to exclude that those of which the author reports the observations are of terrestrial origin. 2 - Classification of triangular UFOs: based on the lights that appear under the craft, it reveals five types of craft. The author is aware that this classification is reductive, but he considers that it is a start. From this chapter, the author approaches the psychic impact on the witnesses of their observations. This theme, which is going to become more and more important, is one of the fundamental questions of the work. "It seems indeed to be established, in certain cases, a singular psychic communication between the triangular UFOs and the witnesses" - where we find, again, telepathy.
In fact, this classification is totally fascinating, as well as the descriptions of the witnesses: "My idea at the time was that it was rather disturbing that they let devices fly so low over the city", notes a witness, Daniel, who saw the Triangle pass just above the buildings of his street, around 11 p.m., in the center of Lyon (corner of Masséna Street/Sèze Street).
Hereafter: a part of the typology of the devices observed by the UFO-Investigation team, taken from page 61 of the book. Éditions Le Temps Présent, collection Énigma
Previous image: note the staggering size of the Triangle: obviously, such an aircraft requires a garage, whose surface area you can multiply by three. In dotted lines, a whole logistic and industrial system is taking shape behind it, with its assembly lines and its spare parts stores. I don't remember who said that for one soldier at the front, you need thirty workers behind him... This order of magnitude sets the logistical data, and the logistical data poses the problem of supply chains. The length of the supply chains is decisive, as the Battle of the Atlantic showed in the 1940s: in this case, the lines ran from the USA to Great Britain, with Nazi submarines busy destroying the ships. This notion refers to strategic depth (a secure location is needed for the arms industry and the production of raw materials). This is why a senior American military official would have exclaimed, on this subject: "Where is the logistical supply line, it must be immense" (and therefore vulnerable). This chapter 2, between descriptions, hypotheses on technologies, and testimonies, is incredibly rich. On page 127, the author notes: "I estimate that the dimensions of the Triangles vary between 5 and 10 m for the most modest machines, between 50 and 110 m for the largest structures (with all intermediate dimensions between 5 and 100 m). We will see however that there are machines whose size is higher than 1 000 m. " All variations on the Triangle theme, then, which allows one to guess at the integration of the production lines behind it: built on the Triangle theme, an engineer would say that they are optimized from this shape, which constitutes a formidable integration when looking for economies of scale (making it easier to store them, too). It is already, at this level, an industrial lesson on the fractal mode, with the risk of any series: that the same defect is reflected on the whole chain. The rest of the book is totally fascinating...
Hereafter: image of the book © Éditions le Temps présent.
3 - Chapter 3 is entitled "Interference with the Consciousness of the Witnesses": occupying a quarter of the book, it is just as disturbing as the previous chapters. The investigation is very serious, and I myself had a long interview with one of the witnesses, Xavier, and discovered that another of my fellow travelers from Nantes, Cyrille, had seen one of these machines in Angers, with a wingspan of 200 to 300 meters. More precisely, Cyrille, in 1990, saw with his sister one of these machines passing over them, while the electrical failures followed one another over the city, and that the dogs "barked in a 'wild' way [...] as if they were attacked, panicked. Cyrille felt a sense of fear and unease. But it is to Xavier, who lives in Nantes, that the prize for observation belongs. It is to him that was said, mentally, this sentence: "Peaceful, we are peaceful, do not be afraid. We will come to see you even more often". When he wanted to photograph the machine with his smartphone, a pain so strong irradiated in his brain that he was unable to do it. The device, 50 m on a side, made a long arc over the city, from the Chéviré bridge on the Loire (downstream) to the bridge of the ring road (upstream, on the Sainte-Luce-sur-Loire side). Fortunately for Xavier's credibility, another witness observed the craft, which underwent a singular transformation: past the Loire, still after slowly skimming the roofs of the buildings, it gained altitude, surrounded itself with a ball of light (white) and disappeared behind the clouds. When it arrived, it opened its "portal". And the authorities? At 11 pm, when it happened, the airport of Nantes-Atlantique was still in activity, but he refused to confirm having noticed anything (even though the phenomenon had passed right next to the runways). Xavier called the radar operators, went to see the local gendarmes, reported the case to the police182 and then to the town hall, where, curiously, they knew about it. 4 - Chapter 4 is devoted to the standard theories in ufology, in an attempt to explain the reason for the recurrent presence of non-human devices of all kinds in our skies: "Learning system or control system? It is indeed difficult to identify the motivations of these companies which make these machines evolve in industrial numbers in the skies. Do they want to teach us something, but what? Do they want to control us, but why? What are their interests? It is hard to imagine that a civilization would use so many means on a species as small as ours in order to study it... This is then the opportunity for the book to take stock of the regular "waves" of UFOs. 5 - The last chapter is devoted to the vision and the stakes of ufology. Relationships with the scientific approach, statistical methods, and weaknesses are pointed out.
When a triangular UFO passes 20 km from the Mont-Verdun base, center of the French geo-spatial watch
Let us return to a particularly significant episode: this one took place at the intersection of rue Masséna and rue de Sèze, on June 5 at 11 pm, in the third district of this city, which a Triangle slowly flew over.
Hereafter: as is often the case, this Triangle passes slowly over the buildings. Éditions Le Temps présent. In successive backward zooms, here is how the urban hyper-center of Lyon appears. The proximity of the urban hyper-center to the Mont-Verdun air base can be seen on the plate: less than 20 km. From top to bottom, and from left to right: it is hard to believe that the geospatial watch at Mont-Verdun, which can see millions of kilometers away, does not know that a triangular UFO is passing by on rue Masséna or is parked on a block of flats, in Villeurbanne. Daniel Robin
Hereafter: here is how the base looks like seen from Lyon (FR3 pictures). One detail: one of the two radars has been removed. In the base (partly underground), a FR3 documentary details the hyper-technological way in which air and space surveillance is conducted. France is one of the three nations in the world to practice this watch, built as a system to identify the micro-debris that pollute the nearby space. Not having found the report, I put another link... see here183. There are also documentaries on France Télévisions and RMC Découvertes.
Hereafter: inside the Control Center, at the bottom of the labyrinth of underground passages © Images FR3 Région
Hereafter: a part of the presentation of this strategic site, Mount Verdun, an essential link integrated into NATO, but which will be moved to Toulouse by decision of the Minister of National Defense, Florence Parly. Ministry of the Army, official website
This is why Daniel Robin writes (page 28): "[...] these machines flew at low altitude over busy streets or crossroads, in city centers [...]. These overflights of agglomerations are carried out in an absolute silence. This "casual" way of behaving, if I consider that in the middle of a city, the machines are visible to many witnesses, still intrigues me today. This behavior has what to surprise. In any case, it shows that the intelligence that pilots these machines does not seem to care too much about the impact that the ostentatious overflight of cities could have on the population. But that may be just an appearance.
In reality, the machines cannot ignore the proximity of air and geospatial surveillance facilities, and vice versa for our military. There is no need, either, to throw stones at them: the technological gap is so immense that they are without means, that any initiative on our part would be an inconsiderate risk. Everything happens as if these Triangles were at home with us. A question arises: what interest(s) do the Triangles have in urban hyper-centers, as well as, as other testimonies indicate, the tops of suburban buildings or shopping malls - and this, always at night or, at the very least, from the moment the sun sets?
Such questions are serious, especially since the presence of Triangles is becoming more and more important. In fact, the Triangle observed at the intersection of rue de Sèze and rue Masséna, named after a former Marshal of the Empire (moreover), was indeed an act of sovereignty over Lyon. To better understand the analogy, it would be as if Russian or Chinese bombers came to fly over the streets of Paris every night.
Hereafter: reconstruction of the overflight of the city center of Lyon by a Triangle.
From Ovnis-investigation to "Vertical-Project
Daniel Robin, in addition to being an author, is president of Ovnis-investigation. This association presents itself as follows: "The Ovnis-Investigation association, based in Lyon, has as its goal the rational and objective study of the UFO phenomenon (ufology); Ovnis-Investigation has more than a hundred members spread throughout France; Ovnis-Investigation, which receives dozens of testimonies each month, listens to people who have observed an unexplainable and disturbing phenomenon; Let us recall that ufology is not an exact science, but it uses the intellectual tools and methods of other sciences to carry out its research; we do not profess any specific belief about UFOs. " Some of its members are scientists, which in no way means that the work is not conducted seriously by the rest of the members. "The association has built up a computerized database (Base OI - Access) that now includes more than 1,000 cases of UFO sightings staggered between the 1930s and 2017." To the question of whether this classification is of exact parallelism with that of Cnes (and Geipan), that is to say that all of these cases would be classified "D" (i.e. "Pans", or unexplained aerial phenomena), the answer is negative: because they involve many sightings by isolated individuals. The presentation of the spirit underlying the work of UFO-Investigation would be incomplete if I did not add that the association has adhered to the Manifesto against a post-materialist science by Mario Beauregard (see here184 ; for Mario Beauregard, see here185 ). This manifesto gave rise, in their forum, to a response from the Sceptiques du Québec (see here186). I am therefore putting the thesis and the antithesis here, because they testify to the science that is being done.
In my own work, concerning the pre-documentary entitled UFOs in the forest of Broceliande, only 25% of the observations are made by witnesses in groups (thus are "D" cases in the sense of the Cnes), the others being made by isolated individuals. It is obvious that this is a major point of method: from then on, the investigation must be tightly focused on the witness, much more complete, and avoid all hypotheses of confusion, of misinterpretation (it is necessary to study the astronomical tables, the satellite map, etc.). I develop this methodology in the pre-documentary already mentioned): I would say that in the case of a work with an isolated witness and a photographic document, the screen is 1 out of 4: without a photographic document, without the time of the observation, the screen will in fact depend completely on the witness himself, on his credibility, on the spontaneity of his answer. What makes science is when isolated testimonies accumulate on the same small area - the case of several places in Broceliande. All this to tell you that we are in a science which would like to be exact, but which is in fact closer to the judicial investigation, but without the scientific police being associated. Indeed, scientific data (radar and others) are classified as Secret-Defense. Hence the need to counter the analysis of UFOs in the field with these missing data. A complete analysis of the chain would indeed associate testimonies, jet pilots, radarists, satellites and astronomical observatories, up to the international space station. From the point of view of radar or video observations, it would involve exceptional slow motion, the use of light amplification associated with active radars (which project microwaves) and passive radars.
Finally, Daniel Robin alluded to telepathic phenomena between witnesses and the occupants of the object, witnesses who sometimes seemed to see in the device itself those who occupied them. I put here187 a link to a conference on this subject given by Jacques Vallée. This brings us to the birth of the Vertical-Project: with his friend Nagib Kary, Daniel Robin has created a society that invites us, precisely, to another look at UFOs. In the events that it organizes we find this theme.
Example: intuition and remote vision.
There is an esoteric, rather unprovable part of certain theories - allowing a kind of sociology of the improbable from which the proof is absent (but the statistics, less). The question is: what is the motivation of UFOs to be here, flying over cities, suburbs, etc.? There is a coherent theory. I will expose it to you by giving you here the link of a conference of Father François Brune (see here188), a clergyman who has broken with the dogmas of the official church - but who is known in "spirituality" circles. Beginning the interview with a speech on the miracle of Fatima, he puts forward an explanation for the presence of certain UFOs. Moreover, some "ufologists" coming from "hard" science have agreed with this idea (such as Jacques Vallée, at least according to François Brune), and you will feel the strangest theory ever, a speculation to be put away in the closet with others. While waiting to open it again to see later what the mice will not have nibbled. François Brune, recognizing the difficulty of the proof, its impossibility, explains: "Certain forces draw their vital energy from our emotions, and for that it is necessary that our emotions are particularly strong, and then the strongest ones can be the sexual desire, it can be the hatred, the anguish, the fear, the desire to do evil". What we can say about the Triangles is that they mark with their sovereignty all the space that goes from 20 m above the highest buildings of the urban areas to all that is above. It doesn't matter that the army watches over this space 20 km away. It is, beyond provocation, a perfect indifference, a taking of possession that could, by a hair's breadth, become physical. But this is not the case with the UFOs that fly over Broceliande. There would thus exist at least two "UFO" components, perhaps opposed, between which we could slip, choose... but are these poncifs understandable by these components? So, yes, let's sail - perhaps in remote perception - towards these worlds, with more certainty (and even more methodological precautions).
See here189 an extended version of the interview with Daniel Robin
Hereafter: towards a communication with UFOs © Vertical Project
6. UFO Papers 6. UFOs, François Hollande, Emmanuel Macron, the spooks and me
(See here190 the article on the blog of Mediapart.) December 29, 2019, completed
November 20, 2020. Chapô: Making a documentary on Unidentified Flying Objects
Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), involving DGSE sources, as well as
repeated sightings above the military camp of Coëtquidan, I would like to relate the facts that I experienced. A note of atmosphere. No more.
As said, I claim to have cooperated with the DGSE from April 2013 to May 2015 on the subject of UFOs, peripherally (without a contract or formal proof), from the testimonies of sightings of Unidentified Flying Objects that I had collected during a decade in Brittany - even lived. The result was a pre-documentary, which I put online in October 2019. To investigate, I worked not only in the field, in Brittany in the forest of "Brocéliande", a third of which is covered by the camp of Saint-Cyr-Coëtquidan, but also in Paris, developing a vast relational network - including many intelligence agents. Starting in the spring of 2012, I was the subject of several approaches for recruitment. I refused these proposals but, however, from the beginning of April 2013, I agreed to deliver my strange observations, my equally strange theories, and to work together with the specialized team formed in the years 2011. I did so for the general interest, as a whistleblower to the administration - without seeking to spread what we found. But the insistence of the managers to obtain more and more information, the lack of reciprocity in the relationship, the violence, the fact of being a priori the suspect who could one day lift the veil, the absence of consideration, led me to distance myself. I found adventurous the position of those in charge with regard to UFOs, as much as I apprehended it: F. Hollande, Bernard Bajolet (ex-patron of the DGSE), Pierre-de Villiers (ex-chief of staff of the army), E. Macron. However, I thank Mr. Hollande for having withdrawn in 2014 the subsidy to a public equipment project that I was fighting against (see here).
Work of collecting information for a pre-documentary
So I gathered, in secret, a team of designers who made roughs (sketches) for this pre-documentary (more of a document than a pre-documentary), most of them without knowing each other. I equipped myself with video equipment and I recorded about twenty witnesses, whose statements I collated, verified and cross-checked with the greatest possible rigor, given the weakness of my means. Beyond this very banal investigation in "ufology", I knew enough about the "army" and intelligence context to give it a new angle. The work was done from mid-2018 to October 2019, when the video was posted on Vimeo. However, the field agents realized that I was up to something, although I took great care to work outside of emails, phones, and even without appointments (popping up unexpectedly at my rough-women and rough-men's houses, slightly taken aback).
Eavesdropping, capturing of e-mails and Internet searches, night-time incursion, possible intrusion into the work space, tailing
Then set up something like a tragi-comedy, against the backdrop of the barbaric tragedy suffered by more and more citizens, from the Gilets Jaunes to Extinction Rebellion - passing by these teenagers forced to kneel in front of their high school, the unpunished death of Steve in Nantes. From spring 2019 onwards, a sensitive panic has won over the small security world that deals with UFOs, especially since they noticed that I had made contact with various investigative journalists, in a kind of raid to Paris (after I had begun to be very worried by a nighttime intrusion, which I detail next): you must know, circulating incognito in train stations and on the rails has become an almost impossible exercise. Surveillance videos everywhere, when you pay you have to take out your ID, no way to buy a blue card, which would have been immediately traced. It took the agents about ten days to put together the pieces of my disparate trajectory in Paris where, still without prior appointment, I met many people. For me, it was important that they see me, that I give them some pieces on which they could eventually rebound. I was not trying to prove myself, I was only there to introduce myself, to attest by my serenity of my balance. In short, to set up the elements of curiosity and the ecosystem of the proof to come. The date had been chosen, a year and a half after the revelations of the New York Times. For my security, I had set up several rudimentary but functional passive defense systems on the land where I lived: two remote triggering doorbells at each end of the place, at both accesses, hidden among the vegetation; a night vision camera triggered every 4 minutes, and more if I passed by. The whole thing was battery-operated, so that the network could not be shut down by simply pushing the circuit breaker at the entrance to the site, within reach of everyone, according to the usual practice of the DGSI (for example/I don't pretend it's them).
On June 17 at 2 am the two bells went off together! Waking up in a hurry, it was impossible for me to see who or what had allowed this simultaneous triggering. I had made the mistake of putting them too far away from the camera, and the red LEDs of the bells that light up when you pass by were too visible; I deduced that the intruders had turned back and that I had been one millimeter away from photographing them in action, perhaps surrounding the place where I sleep. Terrible!
On July 7, while I was away, I think I can say that they came to search my office. The neighbors were not there, but the SD card of the camera had a big hole in it for several hours during the day. Inside the office, small, cluttered, some objects were out of place.
Moreover, since the beginning of the documentary, I had realized that I could no longer go to Rennes without having to manage tailing. I had therefore gotten into the habit of moving between the blind spots of the cameras placed almost everywhere in the city center. I would spot my stalkers... let's say sometimes: I would then photograph them quietly, without hiding, but what to do with this documentary material? Since the very identity of the spinners is part of the Secret-Defense. So I set up the elements of a counter-filming by a professional investigator, and it worked almost immediately. Excerpts from his report: "I have been a private investigator since [...] and I certify that I was followed on 04.10 during my meeting with this journalist [myself!] I explain: we had an appointment on 04.10 at 9:30 am at my office located [...] in Rennes; at 9:20 am, I went down to the printer to do a binding and I saw a man at the bottom of the building. Mr. Bellin arrived at 9:30 a.m. and my secretary informed me that he was waiting for me [I was without a telephone, so as not to be ''stubborn'']. Being already at the bottom of building X, I urged Mr. Bellin to join me. The man in question was once again in the vicinity [...] and, when I returned to my vehicle which was parked in the parking lot of [...], I saw him a fourth time ". But there is more: "Moreover, since my meeting with the journalist Pierre-Gilles Bellin, my cell phone has some malfunctions. I receive emojis from numbers I don't know and even more disturbing are the exchanges on my mobile. Example: on 11/10 at 7:56 pm, from 06 [there, my investigator hears a whole conversation]. Then at 8:30 p.m. from 06 [there, my investigator hears the end of a conversation]. Finally, my cell phone says: "your connection is not secure". On this last point, I had no doubt. All this leads me to believe that Mr. Pierre-Gilles Bellin [...] is under ''surveillance''.
If some people believe that DGSE-type administrations have a practice of killing a compatriot on national territory, I disagree and point out that it is usually outside the borders - except during the Algerian war. Certainly, a long time ago, when the "action" department of the DGSE wanted to prove that it had become effective again, the result was a sunken Greenpeace boat and a death. And then, wasn't it, it was in New Zealand! As Bernard Bajolet himself, the former head of the DGSE put in this position by François Hollande, says, the DGSE aims to prevent, not to kill, at least as little as possible. And I know that in the logic of its own economy, of the risks of failure that this represents, this principle animates it. But in my periphery, what do I finally know? Not much. To those who will tell me that wiretapping is subject to parliamentary control within the framework of the laws on intelligence, I totally disagree and I will quote these words of Florian Vadillo and Alexandre Papaemmanuel, the two authors of Les espions de l'Élysée : le Président et les services de renseignement, who underline a serious shortcoming: "I will take one example, that is the exchange of information that our services may have with foreign services: these exchanges are not subject to any control" (see here191). Indeed. So when my investigator was wiretapped, it was a foreign service that did it. CQFD. As for the rest, Florian Vadillo and Alexandre Papaemmanuel consider that the Services are well controlled by the small parliamentary commission that is in charge of them: according to my experience, I would say that most of it remains under the line. I relate these facts, even though I am aware that in my particular case I cannot meet the ethical requirement of proof.
Answer to the skeptics
When investigating a state secret, the Secret Service is never far away. Systematic telephone tapping is a republican tradition, as reported by François Couten, a great man of UFO research. Alas, he has since died, and called himself an "expert documentalist", and one day wrote a magnificent document entitled: "Perspectives of the 'official' UFO research in France". He writes in particular: "[The] new Director General [of the Gendarmerie], Prefect Bernard PREVOST (53 years old), appointed on December 20, 1995 by the Council of Ministers, succeeds Patrice MAYNIAL, who was quite interested in UFO/Gendarmerie investigations as well as in some of the activities of some 'private' Ufology in France. Much later, Jean-Pierre Troadec, author, journalist, ex-auditor of the IHEDN (Institut des hautes études de la Défense nationale) will not say the contrary in a conference given on BTLV). He gives us an unstoppable, documented history, and says in passing that the Secret Services are interested in private individuals in ufology - but without insisting. I add, but it is an opinion, that they extend their antennas in the associations constituted around UFOs, where you will probably cross many indicators.
To "destroy" them has become a particular specialty of the activist circles that swarm in the Pays de Brocéliande. It seems that one of them was thus driven away, manu militari, from a certain bistro; in another, he had to pay for his general round of drinks; in another, disgusted by all the stares he was getting, he suddenly stalled, leaving in great furious strides to get back to his white car.
At the Nuits Debouts meetings in the summer of 2016, they were not the least friendly and caring of the participants. Always dynamic, always open, always listening, the first to do the cooking...
At Notre-Dame-Des-Landes, one of them would have established a love relationship with an activist (to whom he gave a child!). Then, one day, she realized that she had been manipulated. At the great moments of observation of the UFOs above the forest, they were there in pairs, but often not knowing each other: they therefore had to issue reports in which they signaled each other, a way perhaps of verifying for their superiors if their covers were effective. So, we know them as well as they know us: their concerns, their induced questions, the moments when they focus their attention on certain militants, repeat names and addresses to themselves (like dear B., who, while repeating them to himself, moved his lips without realizing it), focus on certain words, often teach us as much about them as we do about them (not to mention the fact that we can change our minds). Following my article, the Mufon [under the pen of its former president] gave a retrospective of the murders that seem to be attributable to the Secret Services in the world on this subject, quite documented, which I link to here192 : if the Mufon is not going to investigate every case, it can be trusted overall. The organization [or, rather, its former President] indicates its doubts about the information I provide about myself and rightly emphasizes the inexistence of formal proof of my links with the SS. Alas, when one investigates the evanescent phenomenon of UFOs, and one happens to be the object of interest of equally evanescent characters such as "secret" agents (civil servants of category A, B or C), one happens to place one evanescence on top of another, and the proof dissolves itself, just like the tape from Mission Impossible. Does this mean that we can say anything? Why take this risk, when one has a certain legitimacy otherwise, why suddenly start to fabricate, what does one gain? Intelligence analysts, when they target an individual, search to the very bottom, with this question in the background: is our source credible, a question that is constantly asked and reasked, before and after recruitment, while more and more it is being pushed into its furthest reaches. So, when we talk about proof and the SS, I always say listen or listen again to the Chronicles of Monsieur X, this character who is so incredibly aware of the underbelly of national and international politics - and who was the subject of a weekly column on France Inter, which lasted about fifteen years, engaging in a fascinating dialogue with Patrick Pesnot, a great connoisseur of the Secret Service if ever there was one (for the record, he met Monsieur X at the Arsenal library, where many diplomatic archives are kept). I have put this link where a journalist puts him to the question: see here193. After all, aren't you an actor, a phantasm, a montage, she asks him? a "legend". Clearly, you are hiding to do some listening. So, give yourself your identity, your rank, lift this veil. Mr. X categorically refuses: the precision of the information he brings is his legitimacy. It is proof. In the matter of secrecy, of "legends", what would indeed bring the knowledge of his identity: certainty, disappointment? Only for him the quality and the precision of the information are proof. I have the weakness to think that it is thus that I give the proof on this particular subject, and still in a limited, fragmentary way.
The X-on-Y affair: Secret Service at work?
So, I decided to thicken the mystery by giving you all the details of a crunchy and farcical case, but which could have been tragic, happened (when?), happened (where?). Let's say in the area where I investigate. A "Ufologist" would have, according to him, been the object of a picturesque murder attempt. He had first observed, in the field, ultra-sonic phenomena of which he had tried methodically to triangulate the source, often at night, before the emissions suddenly stopped. "Did I make the mistake, he confided to me, of talking about it to an ufologist on the phone? But Ufologists are like that they can't get it stuck in their heads that, to investigate an ultra-sensitive subject, you have to use an encrypted tunnel for your research, open a box on Proton and not on Orange or Gmail. And when you phone, you use an encrypted messaging system such as Telegram (although there may be a wolf there, because Telegram is not open-source, unlike other encrypted messaging systems).
The community does not seem to understand that no source, under these conditions, will give them decisive confessions. In short, if we analyze our investigative capacity on the subject as a group (animated by dissension, as it should be), we can answer: very weak, then continue to observe the Lights in the night and ask ourselves "Thai Lanterns or not"? After a while, it seems like a dead end. That said, the ufological milieu is also a hyper-serious milieu where, above all, the speakers and listeners want to be all the more strict on the analysis as they are everywhere reproached for being illuminated. To tell the truth, I have never seen as much seriousness as there. But let's stop being naive and too transparent if we want to find out: basically, the DGSE has created for us a method without equivalent to make the nature of the UFO phenomenon understandable. Linking observation on the ground to remote perception, according to protocols perfectly described by Fabrice Bonvin - and many others, of course.
But let us return to my witness. Intrigued, he starts to investigate the ultrasonic (by realizing the existence of such phenomena in the forest), wondering if it was not a way to echolocate UFOs, then falls on the lethal possibilities of the thing. See here194 and here195 two very serious links (my witness is not very convincing, but you will find interesting information there). So he buys a detector and this one doesn't leave him anymore. And here is that when he arrives at a certain date (but which one?), in a certain place (but which one?), he goes to put an envelope in a mailbox (a "mailbox" in the manner of the SS? I will not know more). Suddenly, his detector rings. About thirty decibels hit him. Nothing in fact! Let him tell it: "When I arrived, I noticed a guy on a scooter finishing a cup of coffee... there were very few people on the square... he looked at me briefly, finished his cup, adjusted his helmet, walked around the square... I knew something was wrong because, instead of leaving by the back road, he came back on his way, passed my car and left." "As far as I was concerned, I had detonated (Editor's note: verbatim) an officer." Okay, but that is what I call an interpretation. In the Secret Service, when agents start seeing midgets everywhere, they are said to "hit the bottom of the bowl.
"I got out of my car, with my detector, but we were within the reasonable limits of hyper frequency on a very quiet morning. And suddenly, as I approached, everything started to sound, I witnessed a 50-60 DB jump [Editor's note: this is notable, because the scale is logarithmic, and it is unthinkable without an artificial source/ Also, this is the first confinement, there is not a car in the streets]. I started to feel uneasy. I ran back, hid behind the corner of the house, which was also the corner of the street, camera in hand: there, the frequencies were about down. I then put out my arm and the device started to ring again, all under the eye of the witnesses, 10 m away. The source seemed to be a car, let's say a dozen meters away [Editor's note: it is therefore not surprising that the witnesses did not feel anything, being too far away, the energy of the high frequencies dissipating quickly with the distance]. To determine the source of emission, in my opinion a point at the low level of the vehicle, I came out of my hiding place, got closer to the source of emission, but, at that moment, the frequencies fell back, so I was able to put my mail. But the frequencies remained at a fairly high residual level and I felt the uneasiness returning. So I ran to my car, still under the perplexed eye of the witnesses." "To note: on the phone, in plain English, I had indicated to my interlocutor that I would come by to hand over the envelope. So there is no doubt in my mind that I am being bugged. I had him take it all back in mapping, below. In the reflections made a few years ago during a symposium bringing together military and medical experts on the "soldier of the future", a brief allusion is made to ultrasound (but which does not allow us to conclude on its lethality). See Les cahiers de la RDN, le soldat augmenté (downloadable PDF version, on the blog where the article is published196). In reality, it will take months and months to understand that what was projected towards the victim was microwaves, and that it was a form of intimidation - so absurd a priori that, if he went to court with just that, he would make a fool of himself.
Hereafter: how to post a letter under a hyper-frequency jet: from left to right, the place, the scooter (thin black line in front of the parking lot), the arrival of the witness's car, the departure of the scooter which goes around the parking lot and passes again on the left of the car/witness, its departure towards the mailbox, the cone of emission of the high frequencies seeming to come from the car higher, the withdrawal of the witness while his device rings, the moment when he takes his hand out of the corner with his device in his hand to note the level of emission a first time, his return towards the mailbox by checking a second time the emissions (then in decline), the moment when he picks up the phone, on the verge of fainting. After investigation, the emission jet is too weak: it would bounce off the skin. Nevertheless, there are the readings which are outside the averages and the discomfort: but it would have been necessary for our man to faint and for the ambulance to come to objectify. There are still the readings: but when we go back to the device months later, we discover only 43 DB, which is normal on a calm morning. Then, by reanalyzing the device, we note that it underestimates by 20 DB the ultra-sounds. As a result, the measurement becomes strange again. But at this threshold, we come back to the same problem: it is insufficient in decibels to cause a malaise. So, either there is nothing, or there is something else. Finally, last point, you can simply by shaking a bunch of keys generate ultra-high frequencies of 60 DB. There is still the discomfort: but there is only the witness to report his sensations. In short, at this moment at least, in the game of cat and mouse, one does not find a kitten. Nevertheless, I have put the reconstruction on the screen. Damn, I had not made it for nothing! (Text resumed on Nov. 4, 2020) From left to right, and from top to bottom, checking the facts. Pierre-Gilles Bellin197
7. UFO Papers 7. Mister François Hollande
the ecologist and the lake of Tremelin
(See here198 the article on the blog of Mediapart.) October 7, 2019. Chapô:
In response to questions, return to a little-known episode, because long hidden by the protagonists, of an intervention of François Hollande, then President of the Republic, against the risk of a major degradation on a Breton natural site. Would the man be in fact a hidden ecologist? A journey to the land of surprises, twists and turns... and strong ambiguities.199
The context is the decision of the Communauté de communes de-Montfort-sur-Meu, then headed by Joseph Lez (Mayor of Breteuil), who would later become President of the Pays de Brocéliande, to install an Olympic athletics stadium on the edge of the Brocéliande forest - at the instigation of the Mayor of Iffendic, Christophe Martins. I have developed the struggle that followed on my blog of Mediapart. The idea behind this project, it seems, was to make the site a training ground for the Stade Rennais soccer team - a sort of local Clairefontaine, to sum up, with accommodation for the players in the deserted gîtes eleven months out of twelve. The spirit of our replica was to show, through a graphic counter-project, on the basis of a qualitative economic study, that man, "the Human", could coexist with nature - without crushing the latter under his weight and ego. And create jobs, unsubsidized. As a former mayor of Iffendic had said, the place brings almost no benefits to the inhabitants.
The intervention of François Hollande, then President
This one is part of the multi-replica that we have implemented: - political, by presenting citizens' lists in the two villages concerned, and which have shaken the local "notabilistic" system by their quick and deserved success (I believe); - media, naturally. Ouest France was a little interested in our case, but thousands of leaflets suddenly flooded the mailboxes of the inhabitants, astonished that such a project could exist; - legal, by taking us to the administrative court against a parking lot on the site of Trémelin (in order to stop the work immediately). Indeed, the two communities managing the site felt so much ownership that they had forgotten the legal display; - and, on May 23, 2014, the association sent a letter to François Hollande, asking him to remove the subsidy to the project requested by the local communities concerned to the Minister of Sports, Najat Vallaud-Bellkacem (several hundred thousand euros). The letter was received on May 25. The Presidency sent us back a letter signed by Isabelle Sima, written barely a week after receiving our letter. Isabelle Sima was the director of the cabinet of F. Hollande, and her letter is made in the name of and in direct agreement with him.
Hereafter: hypothesis of the haste with which the letter was sent: the Community of communes had already ordered an analysis: it said that the place, wet zone, could not receive a stadium.
For those who are not familiar with lobbying, an explanation is necessary: when a President writes such a letter, in which he assures that he has taken note of the said arguments, asking for the abrogation of a subsidy (requested by me in the name of... Nature), that he transmits it to the Minister who is in charge of the National Sports Centre (the CNDS), it means that he asks the Minister not to grant the said subsidy. Although the ministers are under the authority of the Prime Minister, it is he himself, the President of the Republic, who is the head of the executive. Let us close this parenthesis. Of course, such a letter is not made in answer to "Pierre-Gilles Bellin", or to the association which he co-managed, because "P.-G Bellin" and this one are "nothing": it poses a symbol which, here, in this case, limits the destruction of an ecosystem. In the employment of the head of state, one does not mobilize five minutes in urgency for something insignificant.
"The intervention of Patrick Strozda,
chief of staff of Mr. Emmanuel Macron (2022)
I did not know F. Hollande. I had only seen him from a distance at a book fair, Porte de Versailles, in Paris, where he was signing a book, sitting at a table in front of about twenty admirers. For me, he was the Socialist Party's tax specialist, a kind of animator-Secretary General of the rue de Solferino, with a singular talent for synthesis - and, it seems, a great sense of humor. He was also the great "buddy" of Bernard Bajolet, director of the DGSE from April 2013 to April 2017, with whom he had done his internship at ENA when the man was a diplomat in Algiers. I couldn't activate his attention, I needed an intermediary. When I received the letter from François Hollande, I let my contact know that I did not believe him. That stunned him. Some time passed. On the first of July, a letter from the prefecture confirmed in a lapidary, ultra-ambiguous way, in minimum service, under the pen of an assistant, the letter of F. Hollande (in my opinion, there is a kind of disagreement between the two men. Three short weeks: the time for the information to leave me, to go back up, to be digested, and for the order to return to the prefecture. In his memoirs, Les leçons du pouvoir, the former head of state will write that the prefects were the essential cogs of his administration. He is quite right). However, beware: this is my version. I am aware that it presents a singular paucity of evidence. It has the merit of a certain intellectual coherence... Notwithstanding the whole context that I have described to you of the espionage around UFOs in this region, and of the role that I claim to have played. Towards the readers, I must be honest. Does the degradation of my security context, which I denounced before this article, participate in my means of proof? It's up to you to see.
Hereafter: letter from Patrick Strozda. Then Prefect of the region, his security competence will be very useful to Emmanuel Macron during the repression of the Yellow Vests movement. He was also summoned by the Senate during the Benalla affair. In the prefecture of Rennes, his right-hand man was Patrick Faure, a charming man according to a relation, and who knew the DGSE well.
Of the real impact of this double intervention
On July 7, 2014, at the request of the co-president of our association, the mayor of Iffendic specified, in the first municipal council where was held, for the first time in the history of this unknown town in France, a mini-opposition of four councilors (representing 27% of voters), that he had activated a soil study on the site where was to be held the famous stadium. For he now doubted that the site could accommodate the project. It looked like a clever way out of the crisis. I think that in fact the man was aware that a lawsuit was going to be filed, probably by Corinne Lepage's office, and that this lawsuit would reveal that the area had the characteristics of a wetland and could not receive the building. As long as they forget about the legal posting... At that time (I will only learn this in 2019), the firm Ouest Am had been hired by "L'EPCI Montfort Communauté" to carry out such a study: and, according to the documents that reached me, the podological study had been carried out in April 2014. So just after the March elections. And one of the main actors told me: "We don't want to build an Olympic stadium illegally".
Why didn't you say anything?
To say nothing, to tell the truth, was a kind of diplomacy: we did not want to humiliate the local author of this project - and, above all, to wait for his Olympic stadium to be built, but not in Trémelin, especially not there, but in Montfort-sur-Meu. We did not say anything, and neither did François Hollande. On the contrary. However, in these times of destruction of the ecosystem, it is perhaps not a major act, but certainly the first symbolic act that he did so, right? On the contrary, in his Memoirs, the former head of state will expand on the Sivens dam and the tragedy of the death of Remy Fraisse, where he will deplore this one: has he forgotten, F. Hollande, that severe instructions had been given to the gendarmes, hence the point-blank shooting of the unfortunate activist200. Perhaps these are the lessons of power: they are never lessons for yourself. Or else by strange detours. In January 2019, I wanted to know the bottom line: after all, I wasn't sure that F. Hollande was the one who had allowed the project to end. The only thing I was sure of was the ambiguity of the character. So I went to speak to the president of the Communauté de communes, at the wishes of the mayor of Saint-Gonlay, Jean Bouvet (who had supported the stadium project), who told me several things (while bursting with anger): - that, despite all their efforts, they had never had the slightest subsidy from the CNDS (the organization, remember, that depended on the Ministry of Sports). Another source then confirmed to me the tedious search for the missing money for a stadium in the neighboring town which, in the end, will cost much more than this stadium in the middle of the countryside (because it implied razing two of them beforehand!). A friend of mine, a connoisseur of the CNDS, then told me that the CNDS would never have subsidized two Olympic stadiums because, at the same time, Rennes was building its own stadium, 30 km away. But what this friend did not know was that the CNDS could have made an exception, especially a few years later. Indeed, after Najat Vallaud-Bellkacem, Thierry Braillard had been appointed Minister of Sports, and was "Radical-Socialist" - like our notable. The attribution of subsidies to the CNDS being "political", as my source at the CNDS told me (I had sources everywhere, then), having this minister in his game could have raised this constraint... except that the one exercised by the President weighed an additional weight against any attribution of subsidies; - then, our notable asked me why, indeed, a man like a "President of the Republic" would be interested in Tremelin? Very good question, indeed. "We are very small, sir, very small. You are a fool." In fact, nothing can be understood without the UFO context on the site... in particular, where was noted the appearance of a "Recurrent", a "recurring" UFO. Certainly, this is crazy. Everything is unbelievable in there.
So you can imagine by now the organization that was my transmission belt to Mr. Hollande. But, even without François Hollande, this stage would not have taken place. The intervention of the former head of state was therefore useless, except to make us believe for a while that it was useful. That is all. When the blur reaches such a purity, it becomes reality. Especially since the former President of the Republic has finally been questioned about UFOs... by an investigative journalist? No, alas. By a simple citizen, who knew how to transgress all the taboos on the subject. Incredible unconsciousness to risk his credibility in this way, but some people have a courage that goes beyond reason, even beyond science! Gala, an honorable magazine known for its investigative reporting on People subjects, echoed this. A kind of rebound...
Hereafter: when F. Hollande is questioned on the "Extraterrestrials" (screenshot).
"Don't be disappointed, perhaps others will... bring you [the answer]," says the former PR. This, dear sir, we have already done. So I hasten to remind you again of this piece of information, through the proposal made in the fall of 2014.
What more can I say? To say that a President of the Republic lied is serious, defamatory, slanderous, calling into question, beyond a man, an institution that is the keystone of the 1958 Constitution - and of the social order.
Ghyslain Wattreloos, for the disappearance of flight MH 370 of the Malaysian Airlines, where he lost two of his children and his wife, repeated everywhere that Mr Hollande had seriously lied to him. But I will not say it. Dear readers, I leave you to judge all this, calling on you to consider all the preceding articles - including the "administrative" history of the strange devices, and Lionel Jospin's admission. Mr. Hollande has always held positions that put him close to the supreme power - and to its secrets. I leave it to you to judge, also, the fact that we have named these eight articles the UFO Papers. For my part, and for all these reasons, I am certain, convinced, that they will be a major step in the ongoing revelation of the exact nature of the UFO phenomenon - at least for France, which is last among the States.
Hereafter: letter to Mr. François Hollande underlining the "hot-spot" of UFOs above the camp of Saint-Cyr-Coëtquidan, in the forest of Paimpont. And proposing to him the constitution of a group of civilian telepaths, on the model of the existing military group, but with an ethical Charter, controlled by an incontestable personality. And with a guarantee of confidentiality. It was out of the question for me to play the source manipulated by his treating officer. Pierre-Gilles Bellin
8. UFO Papers 8. Trump, out by the election,
soon brought back by ET and UFOs?
(See here201 the article on Pierre-Gilles Bellin's blog on Mediapart.) December 27, 2020. Chapô : Trump and UFOs : discover almost twenty years of US presidential statements about UFOs, between seriousness and fun. Plus some serious documents, to which I will return.
How about a laugh with Trump and UFOs, from front to back? Note, please, that the most important American media have no problem (them) to deal with the UFO issue. Mr. Trump has been confronted with the phenomenon, like every American president: but, I thought, this head of state is very specific.
Seeing his detailed biography on Netflix, one cannot say that there is a Trumpian thought on identity, but a constant pragmatism where if a move is playable one plays it: then, question of difference, the "ETs" it is the jackpot in Atlantic City. Big, huge jackpot. - October 12, 2020: on Fox News ("his" channel), Donald is asked to give his opinion on the subject. Facing him: the famous anchorwoman, Maria Bartiromo, on "Sunday Morning Futures". Let's listen instead to the comments on Rising, where Kystal and Saagar have a good go at it, commenting on the president's remarks (see here202), on Hill TV, a Web TV, - which presents itself as "non-partisan" (somewhat wrongly). "Well, I'll have to check that out," Mr. Trump replies to the anchorwoman without batting an eye. "I mean, I've heard it. I heard it two days ago, so I'm going to check it. I'm going to analyze it well and carefully. But I will tell you this. Now, we have created an army, the likes of which we have never had before in terms of equipment. The equipment we have, the weapons we have, I hope to God we never have to use them. Russia, China, everybody envies what we have. Everything built in the United States. We've rebuilt $2.5 trillion worth of them. As for the other question, I'll look it up. I just found out two days ago actually."
[For the sake of administrative history, he created this statutorily independent force of the Air Force to counter the Pentagon and the latter! In full compliance with his traditional anti-elite line].
The rest of the Hill TV program is devoted, for a few minutes, to the Pentagon's revelations. It's huge: since December 2017, it's just revelation after revelation. And here, Mr. Trump says he just discovered the issue. But take a closer look at his eyes: you'll see a hint of amusement. And note that the rhetoric is fierce from the outset: there is talk of war. In fact, on a deeper level, it reflects a subtle shift in the position of a (not so foolish!) Donald Trump on Ufos.
[We are witnessing the implementation of a new industrial-military "narrative", which is the designation of a future enemy, potential or real, allowing to set up new investments towards the space industry ecosystem. No media in France has realized this, preferring anecdotal coverage. None!]
- July 5, 2019: Fox news, again (see here203). Trump is interviewed by Tucker Carlson. "Well, personally I don't want to get into this too much. But personally, I tend to doubt it all" [...] "I'm not a believer in the existence of Ufos, but you know anything is possible". The previous June, three senators, including Mark Warner, who chairs the committee that oversees the Secret Service, had just been briefed by the Pentagon on what the Nimitz pilots had seen. Donald is embarrassed at the edges to go further.
- June 15, 2019: (ABC News', interview by George Stephanopoulos. Review here204). George asks the president about the incredible (and undeniable) images of UFOs flying over the aircraft carrier Nimitz. He answers: "I think it's probably... I'd like to think what they think themselves, they said, I've seen, and I've read, and I've had a very brief conference about it, but people say it's Ufos. Do I believe that: not particularly." [...] "I think our great pilots should know... Things are a little different than in the past, so we'll see and we'll be the first to know" [reporter laughs].
- Father's Day, Sunday, June 21, 2020: NBC News Now, Donald Jr. Trump interviews his father about Roswell (See here205). We expect to see a kid, but it is a solid forty-year-old that we discover. This time, Donald is asked about the declassification of the UFO file and Roswell. - So many people want to know... In fact, there are millions and millions of people who want to know... They want to go there, they want to see. I can't tell you what I know about that, it's very interesting, but Roswell is a very interesting place, there are a lot of people who want to go there." - "So, are you going to declassify the file?" - "I know I have to think about that...". This episode is interesting because it harkens back to a traumatic experience Donald Trump had about Roswell a decade earlier. Previously, let's go to 2016, because it's funny.
- May 2, 2016: press correspondents' dinner, speech by Barack Obama (see here206). Genre: rehearsal comedy, last year of Mr. Obama's mandate. The American tradition is that every year the President lets loose in a real skit in front of the press correspondents. It starts out quite well: "Next year we'll have a new president, and we don't know who she'll be" [...] Donald Trump makes no secret of his presidential ambition. Of course, no one would bet on him: the Obama-Trump dispute stems from the fact that the former questioned the American nationality of Barack Obama, born in 1961 in Hawaii, son of a black Kenyan and a white American woman from Kansas of English and Irish descent - and raised for several years in Indonesia. This led to the president having to reveal his marital status, in a humiliating session. The "she" can be seen as the line of fire that will gradually target Trump. - "I'm kidding. You know I'm going to talk about Trump." [Unanimous laughter from the press correspondents.] "I'm a little saddened by his absence tonight: we had so much fun last time [...]. Is this dinner too flashy for Trump? What could he be doing instead? Is he at home eating a Trump steak? Tweeting insults at Angela Meckel? What could he be doing? Etc." Without understanding it, Mr. Obama has just made a big political mistake of, let's say, an identity nature. But what did Barack Obama do to this poor Donald to prevent him from coming to the press correspondents' dinner? We have to go back five years.
- May 2, 2011: press correspondents' dinner, Barack Obama's speech (see this awesome and funny moment207 here). The conference begins with the famous presentation of Mr. Obama's birth certificate, an excerpt from The Lion King, a dig at Fox News. But underneath it all, despite its pleasant appearance, there is a certain gravity in the President's eye - even anger. - "Donald Trump is here tonight. I know he's taken some hits in the last few days. But no one is happier to move on than Donald. He can finally refocus on the issues that matter. Like, did we really set foot on the moon, what really happened at Roswell, and where are Biggie [Notorious B.I.G.] and Tupac?" (On August 5, 2020, Biggie and Tupac were seen on You Tube: see here208. When you think about it, where else could they be seen?) Roswell: Barack Obama has just given the " La " of what is ridiculous about UFOs. You'll understand why it took more than ten years and a Father's Day for Donald to bring up the subject, dismissing it presciently with his foot... Revenge.
- Last anecdote. Each American president has the right to a question about the declassification of the UFO file during the famous Jimmy Kimmel show. From this point of view, Barack Obama did not escape the rule (see here209). The events of the Nimitz fell in 2004, well before the two mandates of Barack Obama, so he knew them perfectly. If the man is nevertheless a master in dissimulation, however, you may read fleetingly a moment of intense gravity in his eyes. I mean, I read it, but I may not be a reference on the subject. Now, for a more in-depth analysis, I refer you to the UFO Papers Facebook page. PDF of the document (see here210).
[Since then, Mr. Obama has totally backtracked on his words, admitting that there were unusual devices in the sky that deserve to be seriously studied].