ALSACAT -> Homeclick!

Cette page en françaisCliquez!

ALSACAT:

ALSACAT is my comprehensive catalog of UFO sighting reports in Alsace, the region is the North-East of France, whether they are "explained" or "unexplained".

The ALSACAT catalog is made of case files with a case number, summary, quantitative information (date, location, number of witnesses...), classifications, all sources mentioning the case with their references, a discussion of the case in order to evaluate its causes, and a history of the changes made to the file. A general index and thematic sub-catalogs give access to these Alsatian case files.

Case of Colmar, on November 5, 1990:

Case number:

ALSACAT-1995-11-05-COLMAR-1

Summary:

This was, of course, one of the numerous sightings of what was absolutely not a "UFO", but the flaming debris of a Russian Proton that crossed the sky of France from the South-West to the North-East on that day and time.

Data:

Temporal data:

Date: November 5, 1990
Time:
Duration:
First known report date: 1993
Reporting delay:

Geographical data:

Department: Haut-Rhin
City: Colmar
Place:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Uncertainty ratio:

Witnesses data:

Number of alleged witnesses: ?
Number of known witnesses: ?
Number of named witnesses: ?
Witness(es) ages: ?
Witness(es) types: ?

Ufology data:

Reporting channel: ?
Type of location: ?
Visibility conditions: Night
UFO observed: Yes
UFO arrival observed: ?
UFO departure observed: ?
Entities: No
Photographs: Yes.
Sketch(s) by witness(es): No.
Sketch(es) approved by witness(es): No.
Witness(es) feelings: Puzzled.
Witnesses interpretation: ?

Classifications:

Hynek: NL
ALSACAT: Space junk

Sources:

[Ref. fme1:] FRANCK MARIE:

JS 07:20 p.m. 68 COLMAR (5 mn)

(48°04n -7°20e) 1 witness (Letter of 11/09/90)

"It's a huge trinagular mass that is followed by numerous trails..."

The report is illustrated of this sketch:

Scan

[Ref. rai1:] ROBERT ALESSANDRI:

OBSERVATIONS FILE NOVEMBER 5, 1990

Reference;Place;Latitude;Longitude
Time;Duration (sec);Heading;Passage at the closest
Angular elevation;Dimension(m/km);Distance Atmospheric re-entry (origin/passage at the closest)
Description
Remarks

________________________________________

68E;COLMAR; 48.07;-7.33
19H20;300;E;
90;1200; 952/-61
Huge triangular mass followed of numerous trails

[Ref. rai2:] ROBERT ALESSANDRI:

Colmar (Haut-Rhin):

On a video movie, the sides of a triangle appear suddenly (if longer considered as proving example).

Everyone understood except Mesnard who still doubt that this video represents the reentry, and the triangle is a single video artifact.

Here is how this case was presented in LDLN No. 305:

November 5: A key document

In Colmar, Patrick D., who had a camera in his car, was able to film what he has seen in the sky. This document, of exceptional interest, was broadcast on the TF1 evening news of November 6. The sketch here was created according to this movie. The direction of movement of the set is given by the trail left by the large incandescent mass, top left. All the lights are white. The SEPRA thesis does not allow to understand why, for several seconds, you can clearly distinguish the three sides of the triangle at the front of the set.

And in issue 309, clarifications were made:

The example that we did not ought to choose!

We have already drawn attention (LDLN 305, p. 18) on the videotape taken in Colmar on November 5, 1990, around 7 p.m. and broadcast on TF1 twenty-four hours later. This document shows a set of five bright spots marching through the sky. One of them, up and left, is leaving a trail behind. Another is isolated, top and right, and the other three at the front of the formation, are arranged at the summits of an approximately equilateral triangle. At the end of the sequence, during about two seconds, one sees clearly sees appearing the sides of this small triangle.

One of these sides makes a significant angle to the direction of movement of the whole (given by the trail above, left). We can, in a pinch, interpret this as a side trail left by the point located at the head of the formation (bottom image). But how to explain the appearance of the other two sides?

What you should absolutely know is that these sides of the triangle are clearly visible on the video document. All the people who watched the movie on a televison screen distinguish it perfectly.

However, these three sides of the triangle are clearly fainter than the points themselves. Their contrast, on the background of the sky, is quite low. They may come out rather poorly on the plate below. We must understand that this is a screen shot, made from a print made from a slide on a TV screen. The various steps of the process, between the original document and printed document, cause a cascading depletion of image quality. This process has the particular disadvantage of erasing, quite fast, the low contrast.

It would have been easy to retouch the image to better highlight the sides of the triangle, but I preferred not to, even present a snapshot quality significantly worse than the original. We are still not going to cheat, we too!

A question, a huge question arises: how did SEPRA, with its means infinitely superior to ours (which are non-existent), with its tetrahedral methodology, and with fourteen months of time, not have noticed these inexplicable sides the small triangle? (Because officially they did not notice).

At the Palais de la Découverte, on January 25 [SEPRA had that day, less than two months after the event, given a lecture in Paris] we have learned nothing about atmospheric reentry phenomena. No information on the improbabilities related to apparent size, or the dispersion in time of certain observations. Not the slightest hint on the actual dimensions of the reentry, on its appearance, seen from the ground in different directions. Even on the path we have learned absolutely nothing, and it is still the same artistic blur that hovers over all these issues. No questions - yet huge - we raised in LDLN 303, 304, 305 and 306 was even been mentioned. Obviously!

However, we were shown slides of beautiful moon, a cloud, a hot air balloon and even an aurora.

It is up to you to conclude.

We see in these comments that it is the absence of any information from SEPRA, who was supposed to be an expertise service in the field of atmospheric re-entries, which disoriented ufologists.

As for this case, it sparked a debate in the following LDLN issues (317 and 318), and it appears that the 'triangle' spotted on some images when you push the brightness is illusory: one side is a trail left by the head point, the second is a "blunder" of the video signal, also visible on the other points, and the third does not exist, it is just a reconstruction of the mind! This curious detail explained, the Colmar film, taken by Patrick de Pin, has nothing mysterious (indeed, Joël Mesnard originally thought that the mysterious triangle was superimposed on the atmospheric reentry).

Note however that Mesnard, while not considering this case as compelling, notes in a understatement that "it is not absolutely certain that the Colmar video shows anything else than the return of the Soviet rocket"! If you are unsure, you can compare with interest the image from the video to sketches done in the same area by Daniel Karcher, who immediately recognized a re-entry:

Sketch by Daniel Karcher

[Ref. rai2:] ROBERT ALESSANDRI:

Colmar (Haut-Rhin):

On a video movie, the sides of a triangle appear suddenly (if longer considered as proving example).

Everyone understood except Mesnard who still doubt that this video represents the reentry, and the triangle is a single video artifact.

Here is how this case was presented in LDLN No. 305:

November 5: A key document

In Colmar, Patrick D., who had a camera in his car, was able to film what he has seen in the sky. This document, of exceptional interest, was broadcast on the TF1 evening news of November 6. The sketch here was created according to this movie. The direction of movement of the set is given by the trail left by the large incandescent mass, top left. All the lights are white. The SEPRA thesis does not allow to understand why, for several seconds, you can clearly distinguish the three sides of the triangle at the front of the set.

And in issue 309, clarifications were made:

The example that we did not ought to choose!

We have already drawn attention (LDLN 305, p. 18) on the videotape taken in Colmar on November 5, 1990, around 7 p.m. and broadcast on TF1 twenty-four hours later. This document shows a set of five bright spots marching through the sky. One of them, up and left, is leaving a trail behind. Another is isolated, top and right, and the other three at the front of the formation, are arranged at the summits of an approximately equilateral triangle. At the end of the sequence, during about two seconds, one sees clearly sees appearing the sides of this small triangle.

One of these sides makes a significant angle to the direction of movement of the whole (given by the trail above, left). We can, in a pinch, interpret this as a side trail left by the point located at the head of the formation (bottom image). But how to explain the appearance of the other two sides?

What you should absolutely know is that these sides of the triangle are clearly visible on the video document. All the people who watched the movie on a televison screen distinguish it perfectly.

However, these three sides of the triangle are clearly fainter than the points themselves. Their contrast, on the background of the sky, is quite low. They may come out rather poorly on the plate below. We must understand that this is a screen shot, made from a print made from a slide on a TV screen. The various steps of the process, between the original document and printed document, cause a cascading depletion of image quality. This process has the particular disadvantage of erasing, quite fast, the low contrast.

It would have been easy to retouch the image to better highlight the sides of the triangle, but I preferred not to, even present a snapshot quality significantly worse than the original. We are still not going to cheat, we too!

A question, a huge question arises: how did SEPRA, with its means infinitely superior to ours (which are non-existent), with its tetrahedral methodology, and with fourteen months of time, not have noticed these inexplicable sides the small triangle? (Because officially they did not notice).

At the Palais de la Découverte, on January 25 [SEPRA had that day, less than two months after the event, given a lecture in Paris] we have learned nothing about atmospheric reentry phenomena. No information on the improbabilities related to apparent size, or the dispersion in time of certain observations. Not the slightest hint on the actual dimensions of the reentry, on its appearance, seen from the ground in different directions. Even on the path we have learned absolutely nothing, and it is still the same artistic blur that hovers over all these issues. No questions - yet huge - we raised in LDLN 303, 304, 305 and 306 was even been mentioned. Obviously!

However, we were shown slides of beautiful moon, a cloud, a hot air balloon and even an aurora.

It is up to you to conclude.

We see in these comments that it is the absence of any information from SEPRA, who was supposed to be an expertise service in the field of atmospheric re-entries, which disoriented ufologists.

As for this case, it sparked a debate in the following LDLN issues (317 and 318), and it appears that the 'triangle' spotted on some images when you push the brightness is illusory: one side is a trail left by the head point, the second is a "blunder" of the video signal, also visible on the other points, and the third does not exist, it is just a reconstruction of the mind! This curious detail explained, the Colmar film, taken by Patrick de Pin, has nothing mysterious (indeed, Joël Mesnard originally thought that the mysterious triangle was superimposed on the atmospheric reentry).

Note however that Mesnard, while not considering this case as compelling, notes in a understatement that "it is not absolutely certain that the Colmar video shows anything else than the return of the Soviet rocket"! If you are unsure, you can compare with interest the image from the video to sketches done in the same area by Daniel Karcher, who immediately recognized a re-entry:

Sketch by Daniel Karcher

[Ref. jbu1:] JEROME BEAU:

A frame of the film from Colmar, where we particularly are 3 points forming a triangle, to be compared with the testimony of Karcher

[Ref. jbo1:] VICENTE-JUAN BALLESTER OLMOS:

Day/Mo/Yr:05/11/1990
Time:19,00
Description:Reentry, Proton rocket booster
OK:OK
Location (Country) Code:FRA
Location Department:Colmar, Haute Rhin [sic, "Haut-Rhin"](France)
Location Department Code:68
Media:VIDEO

The sources are listed as:

  • Franck Marie,OVNI Contact,SRES,1993.
  • Bulletin of the Global Volcanism Network, October 31, 1990, p 17.
  • Phénomèna, January-February 1991, pp4-9; March-April 1991, pp 9-13; and 1997, pp 37-38.
  • Lumières Dans La Nuit, 303, May-June 1990, pp 28-33 and 40; 304, July-August 1990, pp 11-35; 306, November-December 1990, pp 3-24; May - June 1991, cover and pp9-12; 318, 1993, pp22-31; Joel Mesnard, March-April 1996, pp 3-5; September 1996, pp 3-5; December 1998, pp 33-35;
  • James Oberg, MUFON UFO Journal, September 1992, p 21.
  • James Oberg, Cuadernos de Ufología, 1995, pp 64-70.
  • James Oberg, http://www.zip.com.au/~psmith/pilot-ufos.html
  • Jean-Jacques Velasco, SEPRA. Spacewarn Bulletin, November26, 1990. Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos, Karma-7, July 1992, pp 48-53.
  • Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos, Expedientes insólitos, Temas de Hoy, 1995, pp 78-85.
  • Perry Petrakis.
  • Jean-Jacques Velasco & J.C. Bourret, OVNI. La Science Avance, pp 40-48.
  • Pavel Spurny. Dieter Heinlein. Zeitschrift für Astronomie, 31, 1992, pp 120-121.
  • Robert Alessandri, 5 Novembre 1990: La [sic, "Le"] Creux de la Vague, 1996.
  • Robert Alessandri, Univers OVNI, October-December 1997, pp 16-30.
  • Robert Alessandri, INH Contact, 2, August 1997, p 2.
  • Masaru Yamashita, LAT/Satellite Circular, February 1991, pp 7-9.
  • Jacques F.Vallee, Are UFO Events related to Sidereal Time? (2005), pp 4-5.
  • http://www.ufonet.nl/nieuws/tornado/index2.html
  • Jean Sider, Inforespace, 96, May 1998, pp 4-21;
  • Michel Bougard, pp22-66; and J. J. Velasco, pp 67-71.
  • Didier Gomez, Apparitions insolites en Occitanie, UFOmania, May2005, pp 80-83.
  • Didier Gomez, OVNI. 50 ans d'enquêtes dans le Tarn, Vent Terral, 2006, pp 116-118.
  • Rémy Fauchereau & Rémi Couvignou, OVNI dans l'Yonne: La vague de novembre 1990, la Gazette 89 éditions, 2009.

[Ref. spa1:] SPICA UFOLOGY GROUP:

City Date and hour of observation General shape
Identification
General color
Hypothesis
Conclusion
COLMAR Monday 5 November 1990 at 19:00 luminous dot
Unidentified
white
Reentry
artificial
Strong hypothesis

[Ref. dsn1:] EMISSION TV "DOSSIERS SURNATURELS":

Ce documentaire prétend que le 5 novembre 1990 au-dessus de la France a eu lieu "la nuit des OVNIS". Des témoignages sont présentés, de manière sensationaliste, sans aucun recul, sans précisions quantitatives, jusqu'en milieu d'émission. Des témoins réels sont interviewés, des acteurs "jouent" les scènes. En milieu d'émission, l'explication de la rentrés de débris de fusée est exposée, en fin d'émission, avec un cas atypique remarquable, la question de l'explication est laissée ouverte.

Parmi les témoingage présentés, celui de Patrick Depin à Colmar. Le spropos tenus dans l'émission sont:

Voix off: "Malheureusement, nous avons été surpris de constater qu'il n'existait pratiquement aucune photo de cet étrange phénomène. Il faut dire qu'il y a vint-cinq ans, personne n'était équipé de smartphone comme c'est le cas aujourd'hui. Pourtant, une vidéo existe."

Sur la chaîne TF1 dans le journal télévisé de l'époque, apparaît Patrick Dupin (Image ci-dessus.), déclarant:

"Ce qui m'a frappé tout d'abord, c'est la régularité et la direction très parallèle de ces points lumineux."

Voix off: "Et nous avons retrouvé son auteur. [Musique angoissante] Patrick Depin, professeur d'art graphique, est l'unique témoin qui a eu la chance de pouvoir filmer ce qui a traversé le ciel de France ce soir-là."

Voix off: "Colmar, 19 heures. Patrick s'apprête à rentrer chez lui quand une étrange lueur attire son regard."

Interview de 2015 de Patrick Depin par l'émission, illsutré par un acteur jouant une "reconstitution":

"Je sors de la voiture, et euh... machinalement j'ai les yeux qui sont attirés vers le ciel côté... ouest, le ciel donc était bien noir dàjà à cette heure, et je vois une sorte de... [coupure] Feu d'artifice un peu raté qui cRée trois petites gerbes d'étincelles mais pas très fortes. Je n'y ai pas trop prêté attention, donc euh voilà je m'apprête à rentrer dans la voiture pour la rentrer au garage [coupure] c'est au moment où je m'asseois dans la voiture que je vois le ciel au-dessus de moi complètement embrasé pourrai-je dire par des traînées lumineuses qui avancent de manière très parallèles [coupure] dirigées euh... d'ouest en est. Ni une ni deux, je plonge récupérer la caméra que j'avais laissée dans la voiture [coupure] j'avait eu l'habitude d'utiliser la caméra de manière répétitive, donc je sors ma caméra, c'était une caméra d'épaule à l'époque, et je me mets à filmer."

Suit une musique style "X-Files", enrecoiupant les déclarations de P£atrick Depin:

"Ce qui n'a frapé c'est [coupure] surtout le sentiment, alors c'était certainement trompeur, puisqu'il faisait nuit [coupure] c'était pas très haut dans le ciel. Ca avait l'air d'être euh... voilà on avait le sentiment que c'était une amrada qui arraivait et qui allait, qui allait se poser un peu plus loin, quoi."

"Ce que je voyais à l'oeil nu, c'est cette espèce de liaison, apparente, en touc cas, entre les trois points. comme si, ces trois points, étaient les trois extrémités d'un objet."

"C'était fantastique, c'était... absolument incroyable. J'avais vraiment le sentiment de voir un phénomène absolument unique. Une sorte de sentiment de bonheur, quand vous voyez ça."

Voix off: Durant de longues minutes, Patrick Depin observe subjugué cet objet volant non ientifié dans le ciel. Il est alors rejoint par son épouse, inquiète de ne pas le voir rentrer.

"Les premiers mots que je lui ai adressé c'est ^mais tu ne vois pas? Il arrive, ils arrivent, ha ha ha...' Ils sont enfin là. Qu'est-ce qui va se passer, en fait."

Voix off: Patrick observe le phénomène à travers l'oe8illeton de sa caméra jusqu'à ce qu'il disparaisse derrière les immeubles en face de chez lui. Avec cette apparition, il se forge une conviction.

"Pour moi ça ne faisait aucun doute, ça ne pouvait être qu'extra-terrestre. Avec manifestement un débarquement euh... au vu et au su de tous."

Note: la vidéo de Patrick Depin n'est pas montrée, à l'expetion de peu d'images fixes.

Suivent des séquences avec d'autre témoignages d'autres lieux, puis la voix off reprend:

"Après le témoignage des gendarmes, des milliers d'autres cont suivre. D'autant plus que le 6 novembre, des millitons de téléespectateurs cont décourir que leur voisins, collègues ou parents, n'ont pas eu d'hallucination collective, car l'étrange phénomène a même été filmé."

Voix off: "Patrick Depin, le professeur d'arts plastiques à Colmar, possède l'unique preuve visuelle que le phénomène a bien existé ce soir-là."

Patrick Depin déclare:

"Mais curieusement il n'y avait personne d'autre qui avait eu l'occasion de filmer ça."

Voix off: "Une vidéo très préceuse que les médias ne vont pas tarder à s'arracher."

Patrick Depin déclare:

"J'ai contacté le soir même me semble-t-il France 3, pour leur faire part de ce que j'avais pu voir." [On entend une voix off dire "mais cela ne les intéresse pas."] "Oui, devant le peu d'empressement de France 3 j'ai contacté France 2 qui eux, ils mônt d'emblée proposé euh... effectivement, de l'argent. 10.000 francs à l'époque pour récupérer ces images. TF1, qui naturellement avait eu vent de l'affaire m'ont également proposé euh... de l'argent, mais curieusement beaucoup moins, au départ 1500 Francs, et c'est au moment où j'avais donné mon accord pour France 2, que Patrick Poivre d'Arvor m'a recontacter pour me dire 'écoutez, non, venez chez nous, on va passer en prime time et on vous donne 15.000'

On voit ensuite Patrick Poivre d'Arvor au journal de 20 heures de TF1, qui présente et montre la vidéo de Patrick Depin. La voix off de TF1 indique:

"Ces images tournées en 8 milimètres ont été tournées hier soir à Colar à 19 heures, affirme monsieur Depin. Le témoignage de l'auteur de ces images."

Est montré par TF1 Patrick Depin déclarant:

"Ce qui m'a frappé tout d'abord, c'est la régularité et la direction très parallèle de ces points lumineux."

La voix off de l'émission "Dossiers Surnaturels" reprend: "Ces images vont être vues parr près de 10 millions de téléspectateurs. Et beauoup d'autres témoignages vont être diffusés."

Discussion:

On 5 November 1990, one or two minutes after 07:00 p.m., a very commonplace phenomenon occurred, explained, and devoid of any actual strangeness, but it nevertheless started a UFO delirium of some of the French ufologists.

The sightings started with an explosive decay over the Bay of Biscay in France, resulting in combustion fragments seen from afar, and generally, as they approached, seen as a group of three main lights - hence it was called a "triangle" - of large angular size, and followed by trails of smoke and sparks.

Once over land, the thing was seen from different angles and at various distances by people on the ground, which gives a range of quite diverse descriptions.

The thing crossed France following a line approximately from Bordeaux to Strasbourg, in silence, in a straight line without any maneuver, in two to three minutes, reaching Strasbourg at about 07:06 p.m.

There were also sightings reported from the South of England, London, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, but not beyond.

In the evening, several Gendarmerie brigades contacted the National Center for Space Studies to report what people told them. Gendarmes brigades of Angers and Tulle got the chance to see the display themselves. In the evening, the Press service of the armies, SIRPA, confirmed that military pilots had seen something without being able to formally identify it. Near Paris airports of Orly and Roissy, the luminous phenomenon was seen from the control towers. Hundreds or even thousands of civilians reported their sightings to the authorities, the Press and other media.

Radio stations, television channels, newspapers, talk of a UFO, then a meteor, and finally the correct explanation appeared through information given by NASA: it was the entering in the atmosphere of the remains of a Russian Proton rocket launched from the Baikonur space center to put a Gorizont 21 satellite in orbit. Calculations had predicted the fallout of the rocket debris at its 36th orbit, crossing France from the South West to the North East on November 5, 1990 around 07:00 p.m.. SEPRA, then officially in charge of such matters, provided this explanation to news agencies on November 9, 1990.

In November 5, 1990 already, an amateur expert in satellites and space debris impact trajectory calculations, Pierre Neirinck, had seen himself, and had also identified the phenomenon, independently of NASA, as space junk from the Proton rocket.

Any sensible ufologist should have understood what is was from the beginning, given the descriptions, and at least understand thereafter that it was a classical space junk case. But some ufologists refused to hear anything about a rocket and continued to talk and write about it as a "UFO flap", of "400 UFOs" or even "thousands of UFOs", often mixing other, unrelated sightings that were more or less of the same day, sighting who have other explanations. This resulted in the continuing presence of this explained case as massive UFO sightings in some of the UFO literature, and of course this includes observations made in Alsace.

Now let's see this Video case in Colmar.

Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos [jbo1] listed, among the numerous sources, the book "OVNI. La Science Avance" by " & J.C. Bourret", pp 40-48.

The book, "OVNIS - La Science Avance", published by Robert Laffont, France, in 1993, was written by journalist and UfO enthusiast Jean-Claude Bourret, with the collaboration of Jean-Jacques Velasco, who was at the time of this event the head of the official SEPRA, the service of the CNES in charge of "PAN", i.e. UFO sightings. But the book says nothing of this video. The few pages deal with the story of the event, and explain it as the re-entry of the Proton rocket space junk, but it says nothing at all about the video and sighting in Colmar. So I do not list it among my sources references.

Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos [jbo1] also listed "http://www.ufomelden.nl/nieuws/tornado/index2.html" as a source. Unfortunately, this web page does not seem to exist anymore. However, in my memory, it did not deal with the Colmar sighting and video, but with a sighting reported by Trnado jet fighters pilot in the Netherlands, who had also seen the re-entry and were puzzled by it. Probably James Oberg's "www.zip.com.au/~psmith/pilot-ufos.htm" says nothing about Colmar and also deals with the pilots sightings.

Then, his "Bulletin of the Global Volcanism Network", "page 17, October 31, 1990" reference is dated October 1990. If this is correct, thus bulletin published by the National Museum of Natural History, USA, is a publication in which the space re-entry may have been anounced, but the Colmar sighting cannot have been reported in advance.

I think many of the sources I do not have, such as [pp1], [sh1], that are listed in [jbo1] do not really deal with this sighting and video, but with the November 5, 1990 space junk case in general. This is not to say that these sources are not interesting or useful to understand the event globally, it is just that I cannot include them here, where only sources providing specific information about this specific case must appear.

About the "Triangular UFO" that "the officials did not see" in the video:

The explanation by Robert Alessandri [rai2], is just perfect. It is indeed, three of the flaming space junk spots, as seen and pictured by another witness, one has a trail in the same direction as the big trail, the top "edge" of the triangle is a typical VHS tape artefact line (there is another one on the top debris and a larger one on the larger debris trail - I underlined thos in green below), the right edge is imaginary.

Evaluation:

Space junk.

Sources references:

* = Source is available to me.
? = Source I am told about but could not get so far. Help needed.

File history:

Authoring:

Main author: Patrick Gross
Contributors: None
Reviewers: None
Editeur: Patrick Gross

Changes history:

Version: Create/changed by: Date: Description:
0.1 Patrick Gross ZZZ Creation, [fme1].
1.0 Patrick Gross ZZZ First published.

Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict



 Feedback  |  Top  |  Back  |  Forward  |  Map  |  List |  Home
This page was last updated on ZZZ.