ACUFO:

Other reports exist: one of them mentions an object reported successively by the bases of Helgoland, Hamburg, Wittenberg, Neustrelitz, on December 18, 1943. The timing between these bases gives it an average speed greater than 3,000 km/h. It was observed above Hamburg by a patrol of two Fock -Wulf 190 fighters, at 12,000 m, around 11:15 a.m. The object was "a cylindrical body, shell-shaped at the front, a large hole at the back with a panel; it appeared to be composed of a large number of rings, the surface of which appeared convex." Reported on land, followed for a few kilometers, it disappeared at high speed.

The Germans had made findings just as worrying [as those of the Allies in 1939-1945]. Their aviators had encountered silent, cigar-shaped aerial vehicles, about a hundred meters long. Impossible that these were Allied airships. They disappeared at supersonic speeds as soon as one approached them. On the experimental bases from which the first V 2 rockets were launched, specialists discovered to their amazement that flying discs accompanied the top-secret prototypes as they circled around. Reports, photographs, films... A special investigation office had been created, "Sonderburo No. 13". It was made up of scientists, engineers and senior officers from the Air Force. It had the same fate as the Massey commission. On both sides of no man's land, the belligerents had mutually reassured each other thanks to the osmosis of their intelligence services. These supersonic and silent machines did not belong to the arsenal of enemy secret weapons. Why worry too much about it...

Certain fantastic stories circulate about German secret weapons, and "UFOs" allegedly observed by certain authorities of the 3rd Reich. Studies have been undertaken on this subject by experts from the Peenem de base, it is said. The opinion of the experts involved is edifying. Let us first recall "the facts" as they are generally presented.

It is said that in 1943 reports of "unexplained flight incidents" began to pile up at the German General Staff. On December 18, 1943, for example, a sort of wingless plane was seen flying over Hamburg by two fighters on patrol at 10,000 m above Schleswig-Holstein... The chase began. The craft is quickly caught up. Metallic in appearance, it is elongated and silent. No porthole, no door is visible. Then it disappears very quickly as it goes up the course of the Elbe. Radar detection confirms visual observation made from the ground and by pilots in flight. Two hours later, watchmen from Heligoland (East Frisian Island) and naval patrol boats off the Wiese estuary confirmed the sighting to the Baltic Air Operations Office. This is the same machine flying at 3450 km/h heading to 115. 3450 km/h... in 1943! It is incredible.

The experts from Peenem de [sic] as well as the Messerschmidt [sic] aeronautical engineer were reportedly immediately consulted. The Germans apparently took the matter very seriously. [...]

[...]

It was not until 1943 that the UFO problem was entrusted to an unofficial Luftwaffe organization.

In 1943, therefore, the German General Staff was upset.

Admiral Canaris's intelligence services quickly provide a disconcerting answer: these cannot be allied secret weapons! The allies are convinced that these are secret German weapons with which Hitler had threatened Europe. The supreme command of the Luftwaffe then set up a service permanently mobilizing three hundred experienced pilots, aeronautical engineers and numerous scientists specializing in both fluid mechanics and the resistance of materials. Called Sonder B ro No. 13 and codenamed "Uranus", this service centralizes all strange reports, studies them and attempts a rough analysis.

Created in the middle of the war, "Uranus" works in close collaboration with the German intelligence services led by Admiral Canaris, but also with the documentation services of the German Navy and the fringe networks of the Abwehr. It remained operational until the collapse of Nazism in May 1945. The archives of the "Uranus" office, recovered by the English and American military authorities, were carefully examined, and certain Luftwaffe specialists immediately attached to the Pentagon's intelligence services. The American Air Force, having inherited almost the entire file, refuses to disclose it in its entirety. "It is sometimes too disturbing," it is said... This is the kind of story that generally runs through UFO literature. There are many others. The Russians also managed to secure the assistance of certain engineers from Peenem de, prisoners of war. They would have seized plans for secret weapons invented by the Germans.

[...]

Decided to get information directly from the sources, I wrote in 1977 to Professor Hermann Oberth, expert in astronautics and responsible for the German program during the Second World War, master of Werner Von Braun, with whom he worked at the Redstone arsenal for the account of the CAA in 1952. Hermann Oberth is generally considered the father of modern astronautics.

I asked Professor Oberth for any details and references relating to possible work carried out on the subject of UFOs by the Peenem de experts. Mentioning the case of Kummersdorf's observation before Goebbels, I asked for possible confirmation. I sought to obtain references to documents from Admiral Canaris's intelligence services proving that these could not be allied secret weapons. I asked Hermann Oberth about the destination of the Sonder B ro documents after the Second World War. Finally knowing that the German Democratic Republic is currently undertaking a study on the question of UFOs at the Stralsund base, I wanted to know whether he had heard of the existence of particular documents and if he could tell me about them, communicate references. I received the following response dated October 18, 1976:

Dear Sir,

Unfortunately I cannot answer your questions. During the years 1941-43 while I worked at the Peenem de base, there was never any question of UFO in the services with which I was in contact. The code name "Uranus" is also unknown to me.

I first heard about UFOs in 1953. Mr. Heinz Gr sser, president of the Peenem de alumni association, can possibly help you with this.

With my best regards Hermann Oberth

followed the address of Heinz Grosser, whom I obviously contacted as soon as possible, submitting the same list of questions to him. On December 14, 1976, Madame Sallar, secretary of Heinz Grosser, sent me the following letter:

Dear Sir,

We thank you for your kind letter of November 8, 1976.

Unfortunately, it is extraordinarily difficult for us to answer your questions.

The subject of UFOs is not among our usual concerns. We haven't yet gathered any further details on this... etc...

After telling me that she would try to find out more, and that it was in my interest to contact the DDR about the research undertaken in Stralsund, Mrs. Sallar declared herself sorry not to be able to help me further. However, she said, "we are ready to clarify this matter in our literary circle. We will let you know the results, but you will have to wait another three months at least."

Having received no response, I sent another letter to this circle on May 2, 1977. This time, Heinz Grosser himself replied:

Dear Mr. Pinvidic,

Thank you very much for your letter of May 2, 1977.

Regarding your questions: no response could be provided by the members of this circle. No one can provide any clarification.

The secret weapons of the allies are as unknown to us as UFOs.

On the other hand, all the experts who were in Peenem de in 1944 had already left Kummersdorf six years ago. Also the alleged sighting of Goebbels and the 200 authorities in Kummersdorf is not known to us. We are saddened not to be able to provide you with further details on what you require.

With best regards, Heinz Gr sser

If the Kummersdorf event had taken place, the Peenem de experts would have been among the first informed and the Reich would have demanded numerous and precise comments from them. This is not the case. The myth of the "German experimental UFO weapon" must be destroyed. On June 13, 1977 Hermann Oberth confided to me that his opinion on UFOs had never changed. He still considers them extra-terrestrial spaceships...

Cheating:

Cheating is, for example [...] it is again Durrant inventing the story of Sonderburo No. 13 of the Luftwaffe and who only admitted it after my investigation in Germany. He narrowly escaped by claiming that he had set up this hoax to trap ufologists who, as usual, repeat information without verifying it. One gets by as best one can, and I even have serious doubts on this subject which I will come back to one day. In any case, everyone who has read "Les dossiers des S.V." but have not read "Le noeud gordien" will continue to take the thing at face value, as several authors happily did who happily repeated Durrant.

Henry Durrant responds

Mr. the Editor-in-Chief, No. 27 of September 1983, of "OVNI-Presence" reached me this morning, and I thank you very much for it. I note, in the article "amateurism..." signed by Mr. Pinvidic Thierry, the following passage (pp. 7 and 8):

"Cheating is ... again Durrant inventing the story of Sonderburo No. 13 of the Luftwaffe and only admitting it after my investigation in Germany. He got away with it correctly by claiming that he had set up this hoax to trap ufologists who, as usual, repeat information without verifying it. One gets away with it as best one can, and I even have serious doubts on this subject to which I will come back one day. In any case, all those who have read "Les dossiers des S.V." but did not read "Le noeud gordien" will continue to take the thing at face value, as several authors happily did who happily copied Durrant."

Without claiming the right of reply (our relations are excellent), although having been cited by name, I ask you to kindly publish this corrective text, in extenso, in your very next issue no. 28. Mr. Pinvidic Thierry actually asked me for information on the Sonderburo Nr. 13 of the Oberkommando der Luftwaffe, by telephone and AFTER the release of his very interesting book "Le noeud gordien" (For confirmation, see GEPO-Information, n 29, January-March 1983); So I did not have to admit that it was a hoax, Mr. Pinvidic Thierry not having played the investigating judge that day; I simply explained to him that it was a trap for copiers or looters, and I explained to him the origins: my past difficulties, with less than honest colleagues (I'm summarizing!), regarding translations of articles, when I was a professional journalist, years ago.

Mr. Pinvidic Thierry acted "as several authors happily did who happily copied Durrant", although he too published the same story in conditional mode (I reread his text) (!). If Mr. Pinvidic Thierry had telephoned me BEFORE the publication of his book, he would have been aware of the trap, would not have fallen into it, and would have spared himself the trouble of practicing conditional cheating himself, which would is more serious; because it was by ignoring the details that I provided him that he was able to allow himself to accuse me of cheating and claim that "I narrowly escaped by pretexting that..."

Mr. Pinvidic Thierry says he carried out an investigation in Germany. Very good. The result of this having been negative, a double question arises: did he investigate, to verify information, BEFORE writing his book, and, in this case, why does he use the conditional instead of frankly denouncing "cheating"?

Did he investigate AFTER the release of The Gordian Knot ? As he does not specify this, I would like to point out to him that: 1) Investigating BEFORE without taking into account the result is aberrant, and that 2) investigating AFTER is investigating too late. (2) Mr. Pinvidic Thierry is not very sure of his references: it is not the "Dossiers des S.V." (3) (title he writes falsely), but from the "Livre Noir des Soucoupes Volantes" where Sonderburo Nr. 13 is mentioned on p. 81.

The trap had therefore been set since 1970, and it took thirteen long years for Mr. Pinvidic Thierry to decide to write about it... perhaps also because the first list of looters began to spread and that this tickle him? I can't believe it.

To this first argument confirming my good faith, I will add another proof: the list, as up to date as possible, of "those who happily copied". Am I going to make so many enemies? What does it matter! as the other said: "Molto nemici? Molto onore!". Your readers will then be able to verify two elements passed over in silence by Mr. Pinvidic Thierry: 1) the dates of publication of the books cited prove that I did not wait for the release of "le noeud gordien" to "barely escape in claiming that..."; 2) readers who have the works cited will only have to refer to the pages indicated to ensure that I am telling the truth. Mr. Editor-in-Chief, you absolutely must forgive me for the sweet habit I have, that of always providing others with the possibility of controlling me. Not everyone can do it!

• - FREDERICK Robert, "A la recherche des extra-terrestres", Bordas-Poche, Paris-Bruxelles-Montr al 1973, page 42.
• - NAUD Yves, "Les OVNI et les extraterrestres dans l'histoire", Fran ois Beauval distribution, Famot publigher, Geneva 1977, Vol. IV, page l49.
• - GARDES Fran ois, "Chasseurs d'OVNI", Les chemins de l'impossible, Albin Michel, Paris 1977, page 193.
• - PINVIDIC Thierry, "Le Noeud Gordien, ou la fantastique histoire des OVNI", France Empire, Paris 1979, page 223. (The 300 confirmed pilots, added by this author, though being on the conditionnal, I did not write this!)
• - DOREY St phane, "OVNI, les dossiers secrets du Troisi me Reich", NOSTRA no 403, 26.12.1979/1.1.1980, pp. 12 to 14 (about "Noeud gordien" and after Press service).
• - SCHNEYDER Philippe, "Quand les astronomes voient des OVNI", AAMT Bulletin, no 34, 1st quarter 1981, page 7.
• - DE BROUWER Louis, "Les Portes de la lumi re", L. B. De Brouwer publisher, Millau 1982, page 203.
• - P.S. (SCHNEYDER Philippe), "Les Astronomes et les OVNI", Conscience n 2, 1st quarter 1983, page 4 (4).

To the brief mention of Sonderb ro Nr. 13 that I made in 1970, one author adds Admiral Canaris (in 1977), another adds 300 confirmed pilots (in 1979)(5), and we arrived at the F hrer himself (conversation of 09.10.1982): in psychoanalysis, this progressively additive phenomenon is called "Ulysses' lie". So, if I had a slightly devious mind, I could deny the entire and exclusive authorship of my copycat trap. Because I could consider that my looter trap has been so perfected and embellished by the copiers themselves, that I now have complete freedom to throw this screaming baby away with the dirty water of his bath. But why should I avoid this responsibility, since it has the advantage of revealing so much joy to us?

In UFOLOGIE-CONTACT n 8, from the ex-SPEPSE, Mr. Pinvidic Thierry expressed a completely different opinion, with regard to Durrant, than that of today; it is true that the first partial list of copiers was not in circulation. In psychoanalysis, how could we define such a reversal?

Conflating a "copycat trap" with dishonesty has never been a serious procedure; it's at most an old trick of a crooked politician. On the other hand, ah! how I would have liked to see at least as much "vigor" shown towards copiers; My disappointment is great, because I haven't read anything about it yet. In morality, what is it called?

Apart from its immediate usefulness, what can the introduction of copier traps in books mean? We can respond: to sanitation (6), to the moralization of UFO "literature"; that is to say to a very specific field arising from ufology. Now, Mr. Editor-in-Chief, your readers no doubt remember, in the first part of his article "On amateurism...", Mr. Pinvidic Thierry pulls no punches (and I 'approve!) to castigate the vices of ufologists, and to try to clean up, to moralize what is not yet (fortunately!) a profession. It would therefore seem that our approaches are the same, if not similar. So why conflate a looter trap with "cheating"? In psychoanalysis, what is such a contradiction called?

Could it be because Durrant "acted" while Pinvidic only "wrote"? I can't believe it. Could it be because we cannot claim to "moralize", when we ourselves...? I can't believe it. As for deceiving the reader (The Sonderb ro Nr. 13 is neither a case nor a ufological incident), if Mr. Pinvidic Thierry knows a recipe for making an omelette without breaking eggs, it is with pleasure and profit that I will assimilate his lesson. Has life not yet taught him that, too often, between two evils he must choose the lesser?

Mr. Editor-in-Chief, let's get serious again: "Le Livre Noir des Soucoupes Volantes" contains two traps, one of which is now known; two traps also exist in "Les Dossiers des OVNI"; two traps also exist in "Premi res enqu tes sur les humano des extraterrestres." To the wise, hello!

There are many of us, extremely many of us, who deplore the fact that, in all UFO publications, vain controversy too often replaces fresh news, interesting information, solid documentation. Believe me, I was truly saddened to have been obliged to take up so much editorial space from you in order to re-establish the strict truth, and thus avoid the misinformation (or intoxication, as you choose) of your readers. (7)

I think I didn't abuse it, unlike some who didn't deprive themselves of it. It is in this hope that I remain, Mr. Editor-in-Chief, very cordially yours:

Henry DURRANT

Editorial notes:

(1) In fact, investigative elements are gathered in "Le noeud gordien" but are however insufficient to demonstrate the non-existence of Sonderb ro Nr 13.

(2) The investigative elements found in "Le noeud gordien" were obviously collected BEFORE publication!

(3) The exact title is "Les dossiers des O.V.N.I.".

(4) We must at least add to this list SCORNAUX Jacques and PIENS Christiane, "A la recherche des OVNI", Marabout 1976, p. 159.

(5) It is in fact Henry Durrant himself who quotes Admiral Canaris in "Le livre noir des soucoupes volantes" on page 85!!! Maybe if he reread himself, he would also discover the origin of the 300 confirmed pilots?!

(6) For sanitation, it's a failure!

(7) We learn with astonishment that Henry Durrant, as a defender of freedoms, morality, and detoxification, published two copycat traps in each of his books. Given the already long list of copiers, one might wonder how one could qualify the publication of such misleading pseudo-information. Henry Durrant proposes the term sanitation. Perhaps... If then all the authors of ufological books sanitized in the same manner, then ufology must indeed be transparent in its clarity!

1943, December 18

GERMANY, different cities.

A report mentions an object reported successively by the bases of Helgoland, Hamburg, Wittenberg, Neustrelitz. The timing between these bases gives it an average speed greater than 3,000 km/h. It was observed above Hamburg by a patrol of two Focke-Wulf 190 fighters, at 12,000 m around 11:15 a.m. The object was a cylindrical body with a warhead at the front, a large hole at the rear with a panel. It seemed to be composed of a large number of rings, the surface of which appeared convex. Reported on land, followed for a few kilometers, it disappeared at high speed. (Henry DURRANT: "Le livre noit des S.V." Laffont 1970 p.84-85)