UFO's and Defense What Should we Prepare For

I
I framework ofa project which bore the overall title Blue Book. It was confirmed in the
summary and conclusions of the university commission in charge ofevaluating the Blue
I
Book [Project], the Condon ComITllssion. The physicist Condon wrote in his conclusions
that the study of UFOs had little chance ofadvancing science. All official studies thus
came to a halt in the United States as of December 1969, and the Air Force referred those
I
who were curious to private ufological associations.
Although it was endorsed by the Academy of Sciences, the Condon report was harshly
criticized by numerous scientists, particularly at the powerful AIAA (American Institute of
I
Aeronautics and Astronautics). The latter justly pointed out that the summary and
conclusions of the report, which were drafted by Professor Condon himself, conflicted
with a number of analyses Wlthin its body. The AIAA recommended moderate, but
I
continuous scientific work on UFOs.
An amendment to the Freedom oflnformation Act (FOIA) passed in 1974 pennitted
declassified official documents on UFOs to be obtained as of 1976. One ofthese, in
particular, attracted attention. It was a letter from Air Force Brigadier General Bolender
from October 1969 stating that the imminent conclusion of the Blue Book Project would
1. not put an end to military reports concerning UFOs that constituted a threat to national
security. These were not part of the Blue Book system and would continue, as in the past,
to be handled in accordance with the directive JANAP 146 and Air Force Manual 55-11.
I
I "As regards authenticity, only negative conclusions are definitive"
I By Fran~ois Louange,
Chief Executive Officer of Fleximage Companv
I Among the investigations conducted on the subject of UFOs, photograph analysis
represents one of the more delicate areas. In fact, in the public's eyes, photographs
I
constitute indisputable proof par excellence of the existence of the phenomenon, which
gives them a very special emotional factor. But photography is in reality a field where one
still finds many errors and hoaxes, because many natural or technical effects can give rise
to surprising documents: it is becoming easier and easier for a specialist who has computer
I equipment to produce a doctored negative that stands up well to investigations. This
can sometimes even prove lucrative.
I
Moreover, experience shows that most of the negatives that stand up to analysis contain
only extremely poor and unusable information, often limited to a saturated bright spot on a
black background or vice versa, which makes this area of investigation relatively
I
disappointing.
For about forty years, alleged photographs of UFOs, which are sometimes renowned in
ufological circles, have occasionally been the subject ofexpert appraisals on the part of
I
specialists interested in this topic. The physical and technical fields that come into play are
quite varied, ranging from atmospheric propagation to photography or video and including
digital image processing.
I
The analysis ofa photographic document or video is broken down into two steps:
1 - Establishing or disproving authenticity, uncovering hoaxes, fake maneuvers or
parasitic phenomena that could have affected the photographing equipment or the original
data storage medium (film, video cassette). This concept ofauthenticity is furthermore
completely relative, because only negative conclusions are definitive and in the best of
I
I