UFO's and Defense What Should we Prepare For

Iinto the domain of the unexplained.
The gendarmerie and then GEPAN conducted an in-depth investigation including
numerous interviews with the witness and his neighbors. The expert's appraisals of the Iground - the talcing of soil and plant samples fo llowed by analyses - showed unequivocally
that it really was a case ofan unidentified heavy metal object that had actually landed on Ithe platform ofearth. The analyses of plant samples taken at the site indicated that they
were not dealing with any type of [known] aircraft, or even a helicopter or military drone,
which were hypotheses that were considered and analyzed. IThe vegetation at the landing site - a sort ofwild alfalfa - had been profoundly marked
and affected by an external agent that considerably altered the photosynthesis apparatus.
In fact, the chlorophyll, as well as certain amino acids of the plants, exhibited significant Ivariations in concentration, variations which decreased with the distance [of the plants]
from the center of the mechanical track. These effects disappeared completely two years
later, thus revealing a specific and particular type of traum·a. According to Professor IMichel Bounias of the ecology and plant toxicology laboratory oflNRA [National
Institute for Agronomic Research] who performed the analyses, the cause of the profound
disturbances suffered by the vegetation present in that ecosystem could likely be a Ipowerful pulsed electromagnetic field in the high frequency (microwave) range. Studies
and research are still being conducted in regard to this case and numerous leads have been
explored. None of these leads has-been able to satisfy all of the conditions that would Ienable the object that landed in Trans-en-Provence on January 8, 1981, to be identified
with certainty, and this is all the more true with respect to the detennination ofits origin.
I4.4 Nancy, Meurthe-et-Moselle [Department], the so-called "Amaranth" Case
(October 21, 1982) IGEPANISEPRA investigation
The "Amaranth" Case concerns the sighting during the day by a witness, a cellular
biology researcher, of an object that hovered above his garden for 20 minutes. The Itestimony recorded by the gendarmerie less than 5 hours after the sighting is summarized
as follows:
- The witness was in his garden in front of his house at around 12:35 a.m. after work Ion October 21, 1982; he saw a flying craft, which he first took for an airplane, come from
the southeast. He saw a shiny craft. He indicated that there were no clouds, that the sun
was not in his eyes, and that visibility was excellent. The craft's speed ofdescent was not Ivery great, and he thought that it was going to pass over his house. Once he realized that
the trajectory of the craft was bringing it toward him, he backed up 3 to 4 meters. This
craft, which was oval in shape, stopped approximately one meter from the ground and Iremained hovering at this height for about 20 minutes.
- The witness stated that since he had looked at his watch, he was absolutely certain
about the length of time the craft hovered. He described the craft as follows: ovoid in Ishape, approximately I min diameter, 80 cm thick, the bottom half metallic in appearance
like polished beryllium and the upper half the blue-green color of the inner depths of a Ilagoon. The craft did not emit any noise, nor did it seem to emit any heat, cold, radiation,
magnetism, or electromagnetism. After 20 minutes, the craft suddenly rose straight up, a
trajectory which it maintained until it was out of sight. The craft' s departure was very Ifast, as if it were under the effect of strong suction. The witness indicated, finally, that
there were no tracks or marks on the ground and the grass was not charred or flattened,
I
I