AF 3532 -> Documents -> Homeclick!
Cette page en françaisCliquez!

Air-France flight 3532 sighting, January 28, 1994

Note: This page relates only to the question of The radar track associated to the incident. It is in no way an overall representation of the incident.

The radar track associated to the incident:

1. The published situation drawings:

Note: All the diagrams presented here are traced by the author of this text, according to the sources, which are clearly identified, and are not reproductions of these sources. The reader is invited to check the original sources if doubting the accuracy of these diagrams compared to their originals. The only exceptions are the screenshot [rt9] and the map [rt5].

Summary about the maps:

None of them is of acceptable quality. No satisfactory geographical landmarks appear on them. With the exception of that provided by witness Jean-Charles Duboc, none indicates the direction of the North explicitly, and one must suppose that it is in the full top or one must try to reconstitute it from positions of cities loosely marked.

The orientations of the trajectories of the radar-UFO and the plane are only coarsely similar on the three diagrams, the position seems varied also, as well as the length of the track; which seems to grow longer and longer if one compares the FR3 screenshot coming from the computer of Jean-Jacques Vélasco, and the following versions.

None of these diagrams shows anything usable with regard to the temporal aspects of the observation. Beginnings and end of observation both visual and from the radar set are not marked.

On the map coming from witness Jean-Charles Duboc, the trace of the UFO clearly cuts that of the plane, the radar-UFO passed from one side of the plane to the other. On the other drawings, it remains located on only one side of the plane, disappearing just in front of the plane. Nothing me makes it possible to determine which of these two versions is the correct one:

On the map coming from witness Jean-Charles Duboc, the crossing between the plane and the radar-UFO are in the North of Meaux, on the FR3 screen, it is after Coulommiers but still in the South of Meaux.

The whole of these drawing, of which none can be firmly authenticated as being an original of military source except maybe the one filmed on the computer in presence of Jean-Jacques Vélasco by the FR3 TV channel [rt9], appear to be of two categories:

On one part, illustrations or diagrams certainly based on [rt9], these are [rt1] et [rt2], and on the other side, illustrations and drawings that seem to be rather baseless elaborations, with various errors such as a longer radar track, or a radar track continuing to the right of the plane, or locations that do not match [rt9]. It seems obvious that the most reliable information on the radar track that of [rt9].

3. Radar data:

According to: Radar duration: Visual duration: Start time of radar track: End time of radar track: Start time of visual sighting: End time of visual sighting: Crossing: Bearing: Direction: Ground speed:
Paris Match
480 seconds 50 seconds 13:12 GMT 13:20 GMT 13:14 13:15 Croisement. 240 ? 185 km/h
50 seconds ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 110 kts then 84 kts then 0 kts
? Uncertain. Nearly 60 seconds. ? ? About 13:10 ? Crossing. ? ? ?
Facteur X
360 seconds. 60 seconds. ? ? 13:14 ? Crosses the plane a 90° angle. ? ? 100 kts i.e. 185 km/h.
50 seconds. ? ? ? 13:14 ? Crosses the plane's trajectory. ? ? ?
About 50 seconds, and 55 seconds. About 60 seconds, and 120 seconds. "At the time of the [visual] observation". Simultaneous to visual UFO disappearance. 13:14 Simultaneous to radar-UFO end of detection. Crosses the plane at 1 NM i.e. 2 km at about 13:15 in the South of Meaux nearly at the vertical of Paris. North-East to South-West. Perpendicular to plane's. North-East to South West. 185 km/h (radar or visual UFO not specified).
50 seconds ? "Seems to match [visual sighting]" "Seems to match [visual sighting]" 13:14 Simultaneous to end of radar detection. Crosses plane at less than 1 NM i.e. 1.8 km 240, i.e. to West. East to West. 100 kts i.e. 185 km/h
About 50 seconds, and 55 seconds. About 60 seconds. "At the time of the [visual] observation". Simultaneous to disappearance of visual UFO. 13:14 Simultaneous to disappearance of radar-UFO. Crosses plane at 1 NM i.e. 2 km at about 13:15 in the South of Meaux nearly at the vertical of Paris. North-East to Sout-West. Perpendicular to plane's. North-East to South West. 185 km/h (radar or visual UFO not specified).
50 seconds. Longer that radar track. Shorter than visual sighting. Simultaneous to visual UFO disappearance. ? ? Crosses plane at 1 NM. East to West? Perpendicular to the plane's. East to West? 180 km/h.
120 seconds. 55 seconds. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Between 182 and 187 km/h.

Sources for the above data table:

4. Chronology of claims linking or not linking the visual sighting and the radar track:

Quoting: Source: Date: Quote:
Paris Match [pm1] February 1997 "On this screen, suddenly, a mysterious track appeared. The track of a 'bell shaped' object observed at the same time by an Airbus crew." [The magazine's article, also about communicating with the dead and "appearances" of the Blessed Virgin on a building's windows, also claims that it is the first case of a UFO caught on radar. And of course, the radar blip was not 'bell-shaped'.]
Jean-Jacques Vélasco [ve1] July 1998 "January 28, 1994 is a historical date. For the first time we could correlate perfectly an observation which occurred in the middle of the sky, in the area of Paris, with a radar detection."
Eric Maillot [em1] About July 1998 "The tracked object could not be the one that was seen..." [Absence of correlation demonstrated from the drawings.]
Eric Maillot [em2] About July 1998 "The radar diagram, shown here, proves that the 'perfect correlation' between the visual and radar observation (page 53 col.C) exist only in the imagination of SEPRA..." [Absence of correlation demonstrated from the drawings.]
Jean-Charles Duboc [du1] November 1999 "I first of all identified it as a plane opposite us, at approximately 45 km (25 NM), at an altitude of approximately 10500 meters (25 NM)..." "The UFO was within nearly 45 km of our plane... " "I learned about the radar recording radar of the CODA (Operational Center of the Air Defense). There is a very curious characteristic because the trajectory of the UFO makes us almost collide. The minimal distance on the recording is less than 1 NM, that is to say 10 seconds of flight..." [The witness Jean-Charles Duboc thus notes as curious characteristic that the visual UFO is at 25 NM whereas the radar-UFO is at 1 NM].
Gildas Bourdais [gb1] March 2002 "...the ufo seen by Commandant Duboc, confirmed by radar..."
Jean-Jacques Vélasco [jv1] 2004 "The interest of this case is reinforced by the fact that simultaneously to the visual observation, the air survey radar sets recorded certain parameters of the evolution of this object, in particular the speed which was constant and lower than 200 km/h, which could make incompatible [sic] the presence of a classical aircraft of this size and this form." [Incontestably, Jean-Jacques Vélasco allotted to the visual UFO which was on the left of the plane the speed of the radar-UFO which was on the right of the plane, and to gave the radar-UFO the size and the shape of the visual UFO!]
Jérôme Beau [jb1] 2004? "Erick Maillot, just like the investigation report, note that the radar track shows a traffic arriving from the right-hand side of the plane, whereas the object was observed on the left by the 3 witnesses. The radar/visual correlation would thus be in doubt."
Jean-Charles Duboc [ob1] Undated, circa 2005 "... this case corresponds to a visual observation coupled with a radar observation." "When one reads the summary of the observation ridge in the COMETA report, it does not catch the eye that the radar observation of the radar and that of the witnesses do no match, and yet... Indeed at the same time, at 13:14, the witnesses observe this object, or this phenomenon, on the left of the plane, at approximately 25 nautical miles (47 km), whereas the radar trace goes from the right-hand side to the left and passes at less than one nautical mile (1,8 km) of the plane." ["coupled" is sufficiently vague to be badly interpreted. However, the non-correlation is clearly noted.]
Joel Mesnard [jm1] Undated, circa 2006 "... there are indeed observations so very well attested (and in particular confirmed by radar), that they establish the reality of the UFOS perfectly." "One of the best recent examples is the case of the Airbus A 320 of Air France flying from Nice to London on January 28, 1994. It is presented in the recent book by Jean-Jacques Velasco..."
GEIPAN [ge1] 2007 "As a matter of fact, among the approximately 1650 cases of sightings which will be published in the long term on the GEIPAN web site, some remain true enigmas. What did the crew members of an Air France flight see in 1994 above Paris? A phenomenon which actually deserves the name ufo, since it was detected simultaneously by the radars of the center of command of the air operations of Taverny. [No geographical correlation is claimed, the diagram on the page shows a geographical not-correlation, but a temporal correlation is claimed or strongly suggested, and the radar and visual sightings are analyzed as one single phenomenon.]
Jean-Jacques Vélasco [ve2] 2007 "... this case adds an unexpected component which reinforces its credibility in a strong manner: at the time of the observation, the military radar sets [plural] recorded an identified track crossing the trajectory of the plane." [A geographical correlation is neither claimed not disclaimed.] "CODA then found an unidentified radar track in the area and at the time of the observation..." [The expression "in the area" suggests that it is not "the same place" but is vague and allows misreading. The credibility of the visual observation was not doubted, what is in question is the claimed visual/radar correlation.]
D. Weinstein / Y. Sillard [si1] 2007 "The whole of the collected elements did not make it possible to the investigators to establish an absolute correlation between the radar signature and the observed phenomenon."
Jean-Jacques Vélasco [ve3] March 2007 Jean-Jacques Vélasco states: "What is very important, is that there is coincidence on the level of the observation and the radar data."
LCI [lc1] March 22, 2007 "Second unexplained business: January 28, 1994, an Airbus A300... The investigation lasted three years. There is absolute correlation between the radar track and the observed phenomenon'.".
Jean-Pierre Petit [jp1] March 2007 This author writes that the visual observation was totally correlated with an observation by radar sets [plural] on the ground.
Jean-Charles Duboc [du2] June 2007 "It was only three years later, in 1997, by reading an article in Paris-Match, that I learned that the CODA had recorded, at the same time, a radar track initiated by the control center of Cinq-Mars-la-Pile and that matched, geographically and in time, with the observed phenomenon."
FR3 [fr1] June 29, 2007 The journalists clearly state that their investigation shows that there is no geographical correlation: "40 km of difference, certified in the documents of the time."
Dominique Weinstein [fr1] June 29, 2007 Called by phone by the FR3 TV reporters, Dominique Weinstein, who had written the investigation report for SEPRA, states: "the radar track, there is little chance that it corresponds to the observation such as it is described. Unless witnesses were mistaken at the distance of the object and its... its localization in space, er, in front of the plane."
Jean-Jacques Vélasco [fr1] June 29, 2007 When the journalist points out that the radar track and the visual UFO are distant of 40 km, therefore not correlated geographically, Jean-Jacques Vélasco answers that "the radar data are objective, they are not de-correlated from the observation" and suggests that the non-correlation comes from the visual observation and the radar track not occurring at the same time. When the journalist reminds him that the pilot himself doubts that there is a correlation, Jean-Jacques Vélasco indicates that there "can be lots of influences which can intervene" and speculates that the radar track is a countermeasure signal emitted by the visual UFO. When the journalist points out again that there is too much distance between the radar track and the visual UFO, Jean-Jacques Vélasco answers that "our role was to report facts, to put them in agreement, and our conclusion stopped there. I heard say things like yes it is a UFO but it was never the point in the conclusions in this case of saying that it was UFO's." Questioned on what it was, he answers "Well we do not know. In fact, physical objects do appear; which derogate from the usual characteristics that we have to observe from the events in our atmosphere." Then: "From the moment when you have materiality proven by radar set measurements..." [then it is a UFO]. "I keep one [true] UFO case [the case discussed here] [In France? In the sky?]" [Refer to at about minute 35 for a complete video recording].
Gildas Bourdais [gb2] 2007 "The show started rather classically with sightings cases, but then the word was given to skeptics like Eric Maillot, who worked at demolishing the best cases of the Geipan, such as... and Airbus AF of 1994 (Duboc)."
Jean-Charles Duboc [du3] June 2007 "When one reads the summary of the observation done in the Cometa Report, it is not obvious to realize that the radar identification and the visual observation of the crew are not superimposed, and yet..."
Indeed, at the time of the visual observation the UFO was on our left, within approximately 25 nautical miles (47 km), whereas the radar track goes from the right to the left, and passes at less than one nautical mile (1,8 km) of the plane..."
Newspaper [tl1] August 3, 2007 "Until June 2000, SEPRA, ancestor of GEIPAN, carried out the investigation, assisted of a world specialist in the aerial sightings, D. Weinstein, also a faithful collaborator of the GEIPAN. Three years after the events, the investigation is difficult, but although an absolute correlation between the radar recording and the observed fact, it nevertheless remains that the quality of testimonys was not deteriorated by a late reconstitution... " [sic. The badly built sentence is such as given in the newspaper, indicating: "Source Geipan". The article claim an "absolute correlation."]
Christian Comtesse [cc1] August 2007 "the cases ... [such as] ... Duboc ... are systematically altered by the skeptics to come to quite earthly conclusions... So, Mssrs the skeptics, you must know that your deductions have no more value than the drafts than we throw in our dustbins for it is undeniable that you handle the elements of a case to achieve your aims."
Christian Comtesse [cc2] September 2007 As of the Duboc case, Mr JC DUBOC should be with at the lunch in Colmar in November, it is enough to take the arguments which are reproduced on the website of their friend and accomplice, P Gross, to realize at which point the manipulation is obvious." (Christian Comtesse defends the thesis that the diagram of the radar track seen on Mr. Vélasco's computer is a deliberate falsification, an "obvious manipulation", by some unspecified people, and campaigns by procaliming that I would be an "accomplice of the skeptics", although he perfectly knows perfectly that my opinion is that we have extraterrestrial visitors. He expressed himself here on a forum where I am denied the right to answer by its administrator Jean-Jacques Yvars. Mr. Comtesse is unable to realize that the witness himself is in agreement with the fact that the radar track does not match the visual sighting, as proven in this article.)
(Anonymity) [xx1] October 2007 "The latter [Duboc sighting] is an excellent case because, according to the available information, it is confirmed by radar ..."
AFP [af1] November 11, 2007 "A former Air France captain, Jean-Charles Duboc, said in 1994 he and his crew saw "a huge flying disc" near Paris with a diameter of about 300 meters (1,000 feet) that left no sign on radar." [English version, saying "no sign on radar".] "Ancien commandant de bord d'Air France, Jean-Charles Duboc assure lui avoir observé "un Ovni près de Paris, pendant un vol Nice-Londres, qui ressemblait à un énorme disque, d'environ 300 mètres de diamètre" et qui a laissé une signature radar." [French version, saying "left a trace on radar".]
A ufologist [an1] January 23, 2008 "As a demonstration of doubt emphasized by the Skeptics, the writers take again the radar echo seen at the time of the observation of ufo [One does not "see" a radar echo, and the radar track is not "seen" at all "at the time" of the visual observation] of the AF flight towards Paris in 94 [It was not a flight towards Paris!]. Beautiful demonstration of analysis of the results of incompetences in the intent once again to shatter the credibility of a Service of the State charged to study a problem whose importance is capital [Attack of the intention!]. A radar recognizes the form of an objet with a low Cx with difficulty [cx=coefficient of aerodynamic penetration, without any relevant relationship with the concept of size!]. The information which radar can restore [sic] is a mixture of the size of the object and its distance [Absolutely not. A radar gives directions, azimuths and/or rises, distances, from where positions and trajectories, speeds, can be inferred, but absolutely not a "mixture of the size and distance! And this gentleman speaks about incompetence! This is outlandish!]. The real object is perhaps further and larger and smaller and more close [One wonders why the radars are used for air control! What stuff does this ufologist smoke?]. The restored information is informative but not reliable [Uncanny! And if it is not reliable, in what is it informative? And if it is not reliable, in what way can it ever "corroborate" a visual UFO, then? I seldom read anything more stupid that that!]. To claim that the object announced by the radar was on the right or on the left of the plane does not have any meaning for the two assumptions are possible [This gentleman attacks the witness testimonys! He claims, without choking on his own sillyness, that a pilot who sees a UFO is on his left only makes a hypothesis and that the UFO thus might have been on his right! This gentleman should under no circumstances try any more ufological investigations!]. Here is a beautiful example of a big gap not methodological but simply a gap in technical training." [Let's say that it is better to read things as stupid as that than to be blind!] [The cherry on the cake is that this gentleman pretends to be an "Academician of Ufology" with a mission to decide what is right and what is wrong with other people's ufology!]
Jean-Jacques Vélasco [jv2] Asked which cases are the most important, those which "accredit the thesis of a nonhuman intervention", Jean-Jacques Vélasco answers: "Without any doubt the investigation of flight AF 3532 of January 1994. Because it had been necessary to wait nearly twenty years to finally get a case of observation where a visual observation by pilots could be associated with correlated radar data."
3AF [3af] May 31, 2010 "A particular form of furtivity was verified with regard to the simultaneous observation of an aerial disc of great dimension by Flight Commander Duboc and his crew, as well as by a radar tracking station of the air defense. While the observed disc had visually disappeared for the Air France crew it continued to be detected by the military radar sets." [Not only is the fact that the radar track and the visual sighting are uncorrrelated silenced, but also the single radar is changed to several radar sets.]
Christophe Canioni [oco] 2011 The author says that "the ground radar confirmed the observation of the commander".

Sources for the above statements catalogue:

Note 1: in this summary, I did not yet include the entirety of the rather impressive quantity of articles and oral interviews, mostly on TV, in which a correlation is claimed, or suggested, or disclaimed.

Note 2: an observation of the absence of correlation between the location of the radar UFO and the visual UFO was published by Eric Maillot of the "Cercle Zététique" as soon as 1998, at It is via this 1998 text that I discovered the case when I started to work on UFO matters years ago.

Note 3: items on this matter are also in an electronic text available on the website of the "Observatoire Zététique" at


It is obvious that the case was initially presented without any nuances or caution as a visual observation "perfectly correlated" by radar. Eric Maillot was the first to show documents that showed it was not true. Thereafter, this lack of correlation was frequently denied and the so-called "perfect correlation" was reaffirmed, or its absence was hidden in confused or erroneous considerations, or demonstrations of irrational anger, or purely ignored, or explained away by speculations consisting in suggestions that the radar track was created by the extraterrestrials controlling the visual UFO to divert attention of the Air Defense (this speculation does not make any sense, the visual UFO not being located on radar, it would be really "silly" that aliens would create any "countermeasure radar target" at 40 km of their UFO to divert a radar attention that "they" had not generated anyway.

3. List of Issues:

Id: Subject: Severity: Noted on: Raised by: Noted by: Description: Proposition: Status:
1 Data Severe May 6, 2007 Patrick Gross Patrick Gross Several versions of drawing coinciding only coarsely, incomplete, and without sure way to determine which one is the correct one, except possibly a screenshot, shown on TV almost by chance, but not very readable and deformed in width by camera perspective. Help needed. Open.
2 Data Severe May 6, 2007 Patrick Gross Patrick Gross There exists the possibility that the French official UFO sightings reports investigation group GEIPAN owns a real investigation report on the case in their archive. This report, if it exists, is not yet released by this service. Help needed. Open.
3 Data Severe May 6, 2007 Patrick Gross Patrick Gross Temporal data are not decently documented. Help needed. Open.

4. Synthesis:

No sure official source is available to me at the present time. At the date of this writing, August 2007, GEIPAN, a CNES service, did not publish any documents or report of investigation on the case, indicating that "the aeronautical sighting cases are still processed." It may thus occur that GEIPAN publishes sometime in the future the official documentation which would be more of the nature of a ufological investigation than what was published by ufologists so far as I could gather here, and it is possible that unanswered questions and inaccuracies of the currently available sources can then be corrected. However, it seems doubtful to me that new information can change so much as to "relocate" the radar track so much that it coincides with the visual UFO.

The private sources available are quite poor on a number of major aspects. The drawings, first of all, seem to be inspired from a military diagram that shows a short radar trace, located at the right of the plane, without any geographical match to the visual observation on the left of the plane, and it should thus not be claimed that the radar track "corroborates" or "is correlated" with the visual observation. That is simply untrue.

The majority of the diagrams that appeared in the ufological literature or on the Internet seem to be plotted rather haphazardly. The location of the trace is indeed in the same "area" in the broad sense of the term, but its precise localization changes from one version to another. The radar track seems to actually stop when in front of the plane, but some of the drawing made it go on towards the left of the plane, I do not know why.

The length of this radar track also seems to become longer and longer as the years goes by, without any given reason. I do not see what could possibly justify such practices.

While geographically, and in spite of the lack of care of the majority of the diagrams, it is perfectly clear that the radar track is absolutely not located where the visual UFO is located, it is noted that a certain temporal correspondence was often claimed. But no precise temporal data seem to have been documented. At best, one may think that the visual sighting could have started at 13:14 GMT, or towards 13:10 GMT, and that the radar track would have stopped at the time when the visual observation ended; but the meager and contradictory items in the ufological sources on this matter and the absence of any published investigation report with precise data so far forces to remain careful on this alleged simultaneous disappearance.

The durations of the visual observations and radar detection indeed seem to be different, or identical, depending on the sources. Even forgetting the obviously whimsical versions, contradictions abound on this level, and it seems there is not even one source indicating clearly at what time the radar track started and at what time it ended. One notes that certain sources give 50 or 60 seconds of duration of the visual observation and the same duration for the radar track, while specifying in the same text that the visual observation was longer than the radar observation. Duration for the radar track are caring from 50 seconds, 55 seconds, but also 6 minutes, and 8 minutes. With such uncertainties, I cannot grasp what allows to claim a temporal correlation.

Finally, the only element that seems to be similar in most sources is that the radar track does not correspond geographically at all to the visual observation. The visual observation relates to a remote and stationary object on the left of the plane, the radar track relates to an object on the right of the plane, moving at 185 kilometers per hour, or slowing down, and ending at about 1.8 kilometers just in front of the plane at an unknown altitude. A stationary visual UFO towards the left side of the witnesses' plane cannot be claimed to be corroborated by a radar track coming from the right side of the witnesses' plane, pure and simple.

It is thus not rational to consider that the visual UFO and the radar UFO are a single phenomenon whose visual existence would be corroborated by the radar, it must on the contrary be considered that there are two clearly distinct phenomena, which are not corroborated, and each one possibly having its own explanation regardless of the other.

I want to remind the reader that the objective of this text was not to determine an explanation, and that the topic of the text was only of gathering what is known as about the radar track and of its correspondence or absence of correspondence with the visual observation.

In the continuation of my examination of this case, I will thus not feel obliged to evaluate only explanations which would explain by the same cause the visual observation and the radar track, but on the contrary, I made it clear here that I have all the reasons to seek and evaluate one or more explanations which could be different for the visual observation on the one hand, and radar track on the other hand.

5. Document History:

Version: Created/changed by: Date: Change description:
0.1 Draft Patrick Gross May 6, 2007 Start of drafting, in French.
0.1b Draft Patrick Gross August 9, 2007 Drafting done.
0.1b Draft Patrick Gross August 9, 2007 Small scale publishing to UFO discussion list, with call for comments, additions and constructive review.
0.2 Draft Patrick Gross August 11, 2007 In [rt6], sentence "La ligne bleue représenterait la trajectoire de l'avion" changed to "La ligne bleue représenterait la trajectoire approximative de l'avion."
0.2 Draft Patrick Gross August 11, 2007 In [rt5], additions: "La carte est indiqué comme étant pour lui la carte correcte par le commandant Duboc (cf." and "Cette origine est hors de doute pour moi, m'ayant été confirmée encore deux fois par ailleurs en correspondance privée."
0.2 Draft Patrick Gross August 11, 2007 In [rt5]: "Le schéma est cette fois tracé sur une carte" is changed to "La localisation est cette fois tracé sur une carte d'aviation".
0.2 Draft Patrick Gross August 11, 2007 In [rt1] was only noted: "Il semble qu'une carte ait été publiée dans ce magazine en 1997. Je n'en dispose pas. Aide appréciée." At the place, a drawinf I made from this source and my caption and comments are added.
0.2 Draft Patrick Gross August 11, 2007 At places, I used the term "map" for what was really a "drawing". The correct word is now used.
0.2 Draft Patrick Gross August 11, 2007 In the synthesis about the drawing, addition of "L'ensemble de ces schémas, dont aucun ne semble pouvoir être fermement authentifié comme étant un original ou une copie de source militaire si ce n'est celui filmé sur un ordinateur en présence de Jean-Jacques Vélasco par la chaîne FR3 [rt9], semble pouvoir être classé en deux catégories: Des illustrations ou schémas certainement basés sur [rt9], qui sont [rt1] et [rt2] d'une part, et des illustrations ou schémas qui semblent relativement "pifométriques", avec notamment un trace radar qui s'allonge, ou se prolonge, ou des localisations qui ne correspondent pas à [rt9]. Il semble évident que le schéma le plus fiable de la trace radar est [rt9].
0.2 Draft Patrick Gross August 11, 2007 Sources of the drawings re-sorted chronologically in the order of their publishing.
0.2 Draft Patrick Gross August 11, 2007 Completion of [pm1] (detection from 13:12Z to 13:20Z). Radar track duration of 8 minutes according to [pm1] added.
0.2 Draft Patrick Gross August 11, 2007 Addition of [ps1] (Sturrock).
0.2 Draft Patrick Gross August 11, 2007 Temporarily removed a synthesis drawing or the various drawings, as it was probably not accurate enough. It will be attempted later to draw it again, including [pm1].
0.2 Draft Patrick Gross August 11, 2007 Claims/disclaims of correlation: addition of 4.[pm1] 4.[ve1], 4[gb1], 4.[gb2] 4.[jp1], 4[fr1], 4.[cc1], 4.[em1], 4.[em2], 4.[ve3], 4.[fr1].
0.2 Draft Patrick Gross August 11, 2007 Second small scale publication on UFO discussion list, with call for comments and possible corrections.
0.2b Draft Patrick Gross August 11, 2007 Claims/disclaims of correlation: addition of 4.[lc1], 4.[ge1].
0.2c Draft August 18, 2007 August 18, 2007 No comment or criticism having appeared between August 11, 2007 and August 18. 2007, a last spell-checking is made.
0.2d Patrick Gross August 18, 2007 The English version is created by translating the French version 2.0c.
0.3 Patrick Gross September 4, 2007 Claims/disclaims of correlation: addition of 4.[jm1].
1.0 Patrick Gross September 5, 2007 This first productive version is published on my website and announced in the "Last updates" section.
1.1 Patrick Gross September 18, 2007 A ufologist reader reports about the existence of source [rt10]; added to the file. He notes that it is the same drawing that appeard on the [rt9] screenshot; it is not per se, the geographical markers of [rt9] are not on [rt10], the captions in [rt10] are handwritten but electronic in [rt10]. This apart, it is however obvious indeed that the information-pre-se (track length etc.) in these two drawings [rt10]/[rt9], ans aolso [rt2], appears identical.
1.2 Patrick Gross October 17, 2007 Claims/disclaims of correlation: addition of 4.[du3], 4.[cc2], 4.[xx1].
1.2b Patrick Gross November 13, 2007 Claims/disclaims of correlation: addition of 4.[af1].
1.2c Patrick Gross February 18, 2008 Claims/disclaims of correlation: addition of 4.[jv1], 4.[jv2], 4.[an1].
1.2d Patrick Gross July 11, 2010 Claims/disclaims of correlation: addition of 4.[3af].
1.2e Patrick Gross December 18, 2014 Claims/disclaims of correlation: addition of 4.[oco].


My thanks to the various people who took some of their time to find parts I did not have, or to provide their opinions or constructive criticism. I particularly thank Raoul Robé, member of the SEAU UFO archive, for his piece of the "puzzle" which he cared to exhume of the file, as well as Eric Maillot for his reading on August 10 2007 including a considerable amount of useful information.

Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict

 Feedback  |  Top  |  Back  |  Forward  |  Map  |  List |  Home
This page was last updated on December 18, 2014