Page Content (OCR)
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 woud 1a 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 tua er eT tu 1 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 which one does not deny the observations a priori. Our ancestors in prior centuries must have denied the reality of a number of things that seem to us today absolutely elementary,