[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
course. The same morning something peculiar happened on the coast. The French trawler Archipel,
which was close to the rocky shore of Urville directly west of Cherbourg (on the trajectory the
object must have followed if the radar echo corresponds to the UFO), went off course. In view of
the frequently observed magnetic perturbations in the vicinity of a UFO, it can be hypothesized that
its magnetic navigation system gave erroneous indications. The boat got too close to the coast, hit
the rocks, and sank, fortunately without loss of life.
The observation of the yellow "window" on the beach had lasted no less than five minutes. Why
had the two fishermen not walked closer to the object to ascertain its nature? There seems to be two
reasons: first, the "window" became brighter as they walked within 150 yards, and this discouraged
them from approaching any closer; and, second, they felt "paralyzed with fear." Whether this
paralysis was an actual physiological inhibition or the result of psychological fear or both has
not been ascertained.
The observation had taken place early Sunday morning. The following Friday, local people
discovered some interesting items on a nearby beach. These consisted of a complete set of
professional underwater exploration equipment, a radioactivity tester, sonic signalers, along with
trousers and jackets with English-language labels.
Suddenly the local police, with the assistance of the DST (French counterintelligence) and the
SDECE (main intelligence arm of the French government), "discovered" that the whole sighting
was a case of underwater radiation detection. Such was the substance of the carefully designed
rumor that began circulating.
This is what I call the second coverup: the release of carefully contrived official "explanations" that
do not really explain anything but which provide skeptics with an excuse for dismissing the story.
Difficult cases are swept under the rug at all cost if psychological pressure on the witness is not
enough to discourage him from telling his story in the first place.
How could the discovery of some diving equipment "on a nearby beach" explain the two
observations of the unidentified objects? What about the radar echo? The "explanation" is
completely invalid, but it is typical of stories engineered to discredit witnesses and reassure local
populations. These objectives are generally reached. The witnesses are intimidated, and the local
police, the only source of accurate data, are generally anxious to see things return to normal.
Besides, they have jobs to protect.
We were fortunate to be able to investigate this case within a few days of the events, before the
coverup was organized. What would be the reaction of a scientist stumbling upon such a case a few
weeks or a few months later? He would simply brush it aside, and with some reason. The witnesses
quickly become uncooperative; one of them stays home and will not talk to visitors; the local police
no longer have anything to say; the military radar operators in Cherbourg have recieved orders to
deny their statements of the night in question; and the information that appears in the newspapers is
confused, garbled, and inaccurate.
A local newspaper published a cartoon showing the little town of Carteret with a flying saucer and a
Martian in the foreground. A smiling Frenchman has approached the little Martian and asks: "What
kind of mileage do you get?" Laughter releases the lingering tension.
In a later development, which will appear ironic in light of the coverup attempts at Carteret, a
French Cabinet member acknowledged for the first time the reality of the UFO problem as a subject
fit for scientific research. In March 1974, the Minister of Defense, Robert Galley, agreed to
participate in a series of radio interviews that included reports from witnesses and statements by
three French scientists who had studied the UFO phenomenon for many years: Dr. Pierre Guerin, of
the Paris Astrophysical Institute; Dr. Claude Poher, head of scientific studies for the French
equivalent of NASA; and myself. What the Defense Minister told reporter Jean-Claude Bourret that
day might be a lesson for other government officials around the world:
I am deeply convinced that we must regard these phenomena with an attitude of completely
open mind. A number of breakthroughs have been made in the history of mankind because
someone has attempted to explain the unexplainable. Now, among these aerial phenomena
that have been gathered under the label of UFOs, it is undeniable that there are facts that are
unexplained or badly explained.
In 1954 the Defense Ministry created a special section for the gathering and study of witness
accounts regarding these unidentified flying objects. I have before me a number of these
accounts, that have developed over the years until 1970; there are approximately fifty of
them. Among the earliest ones is a statement of personal observation by Lieutenant d'Emery,
Jean, from Air Force Base 107 at Villacoublay, dated November 20, 1953. There are also
reports from the Gendarmerie and some observations from pilots and Air Center
commanders. There are many elements, whose convergence is of concern, during the year
1954. Therefore the attitude one must have is that of a completely open mind, an attitude in
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]