Symposium of Twin Associations GESTO & UFO SCIENCE
Report on the Meeting of May 26, 2007
July 10, 2007
Why "twin associations"? Because GESTO has existed for years, with its own bank account, while the statutes of UFO-Science were only recently published in the Official Journal. GESTO has a bank account; UFO-Science does not yet have one. Both associations are based at 83 Avenue d'Italie, Paris 75013.
A word to members, old or new. We have decided to distribute the GESTO report to members of both associations, without distinction, for now. Indeed, members of UFO-Science have requested the GESTO report, which we are currently distributing. We will address this issue later. In addition, GESTO's move to Paris has caused considerable disruption. Several checks remained unpaid for months. Members have justifiably complained about not receiving their report. All of this is currently being resolved. Julien Geffray, secretary, is handling matters in Paris. Contact him at:
We are currently... reorganizing, and many positive developments are on the horizon.
What is negative is the evolution within institutional structures—specifically, the new CNES service, GEIPAN, created at the initiative of Yves Sillard, now retired and former president of CNES, and placed under the direction of computer scientist Jacques Patenet. One could summarize this as "nothing new under the sun." Jacques Patenet, the successor to Jean-Jacques Vélasco, is a computer scientist who seems to possess no greater expertise than his predecessor. In fact, GEIPAN consists of Patenet, one secretary, and a few minor expenses. His first task was to publish the GEPAN-SEPRa archives online on the CNES website, "in a gesture of transparency." Patenet thus uploaded previously published GEPAN notes. These documents represent a fantastic demonstration of incompetence and poor management, of intellectual failure over... thirty years, at the expense of taxpayers.
Readers somewhat familiar with the UFO subject know the famous Trans-en-Provence case (1981), when Professor Michel Bounias (deceased in 2005), then research director at the National Institute of Agronomy in Avignon, conducted a landmark study of biological traces (1983, GEPAN Technical Note No. 16).
One year later, SEPRa was asked to investigate another case of a similar nature—the so-called Amarante case (1983, GEPAN Technical Note No. 17). When reading this note carefully, one discovers how the gendarmes collected plant samples: by cutting the amaranth stems with scissors to extract the dried flowers, which were then placed "in sealed plastic bags." These well-meaning gendarmes merely applied the methods they use to "secure" evidence such as cartridge cases.
Transposed to plant samples, this yields the following:
A completely disastrous result. On page 68 of the book "Unidentified Space Phenomena: A Challenge to Science," published by Éditions du Cherche Midi under the direction of Yves Sillard, Patenet writes about this case:
- The gendarmes collected the dried flowers, which they kept in a refrigerator until the arrival of SEPRa.
And on page 69:
- Unfortunately, SEPRa was unable to independently identify traces on the vegetation, as, as M.H. (the witness) and his wife, incidentally, are meticulous gardeners, and between the date of his statement and the date of SEPRa’s investigation, they not only cut off the dried parts of the amaranth plants but also mowed the lawn. Thus, the CNES investigators (Vélasco) had to rely solely on the flowers collected by the gendarmes, without knowing the precise sampling protocol, which greatly diminishes the value of these samples. The samples are correlated with the observed phenomenon only by M.H., through comparison with different plants. This point highlights the difficulty of preserving sites when environmental traces are detected.
This shows... many other things. First, following the Trans-en-Provence incident, the CNES service gave no sufficiently precise instructions to the gendarmes (and I don’t think this situation has improved since).
Second, Vélasco did not know that extremely precise and comprehensive analyses can be conducted from a mere 5 mm leaf fragment (as Bounias himself stated). Yet, unless one mows the lawn with a bulldozer, some material remains analyzable (and why should the biological disturbance be limited to leaves?). Moreover, Bounias had shown that this biological disturbance persisted for weeks. The information was right there, at Vélasco’s feet, yet he was unable to see it.
The third point is that what Vélasco did not know, Patenet also does not know. Thus, everything is in place for such failures to repeat indefinitely, due to the incompetence of those in charge. Patenet’s incompetence takes over from Vélasco’s.
Close the session.
A passing remark: Why wasn’t Bounias immediately involved in this case? If sent to the site, he would have immediately taken the necessary steps. He would not have disastrously botched this case. The explanation is simple, even simplistic: Vélasco turned to a lab in Toulouse... because it was closer to CNES, plain and simple.
From what we know, there are many more UFO landing cases than commonly believed—especially in rural areas. But now people are silent and no longer report incidents to the gendarmes. Simply out of fatigue. Why bother? People aren’t stupid. They have fully grasped the CNES service’s incompetence. For twenty-eight years, Vélasco told witnesses, "Analyses are underway. When we have results, we’ll inform you." And there was never any follow-up, for anyone, about anything. So why testify?
If we want to successfully capture this information, we will have to go and get it ourselves. It’s not the gendarmes who can do this work. They lack the competence. It’s not their role. We’re asking them to perform tasks for which they were never trained (we’ll see this more clearly later). Yet the menu is on the door. Patenet writes on page 35:
- Testimonies are "raw material" for GEIPAN.
No, over thirty years, we have never extracted anything meaningful from mere testimonies. We need much more—something the CNES/GEIPAN will prove incapable of obtaining in any field. Regarding these biological analyses, we have only one solution:
We are issuing here a call for a phyto-biologist competent to conduct analyses similar to those carried out by Michel Bounias in 1981. We guarantee absolute and lasting anonymity. The association will be able to personally compensate the biologist for his work. Contact:
If we find this biologist, we will need to establish a network of people capable of intervening on-site and conducting investigations. Our confidence in GEIPAN’s competence is zero. These people know nothing other than repeating, in front of journalists who serve them soup, that "our service employs the most rigorous scientific analysis methods." Therefore, we will be...