The COMETA report is a 90-page French study of the UFO phenomenon issued in July 1999. 

Officially titled “Les ovnis et la défense. À quoi doit-on se préparer?” (In English: UFOs and Defense: What Should We Prepare For?) the report was created by a group of private citizens who gave themselves the name the “Comité d’Études Avancées” (In English: The Committee for Advanced Studies). The name is sometimes credited as Comité d'Études Approfondies, which translates as The Committee for In-Depth Studies. This name was ultimately shortened to COMETA.

Due to the official backgrounds of the various defense and science personnel involved in the COMETA report and the fact that it was presented to the President of the Republic Jacques Chirac and Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, it is often mistakenly referred to as an official document. In fact, the group was a purely private effort, and the presentation to French authorities was not officially requested.

Designed to be an analysis of the best evidence available on UFOs at the time, particularly from the standpoint of national defense, the COMETA report is famous for concluding that the most likely explanation for the hardest to explain cases was that the crafts were likely of Extraterrestrial origin. Published as a special edition of the French magazine VSD, the report is still available in French and English.

France and UFOs

In 1977, the French Space Agency CNES (France’s equivalent of NASA) created an organization called the Groupe d'Étude des Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-identifiés (In English: the unidentified aerospace phenomenon research group), or GEPAN for short. Tasked with collecting and analyzing reports of UFOs, the group evolved into the Service d'Expertise des Phénomènes de Rentrée Atmosphérique, or SEPRA, in 1988.

Following the release of the COMETA report, the group was ultimately renamed to the Groupe d'Études et d'Informations sur les Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-identifié (In English: the unidentified aerospace phenomenon research and information group), or GEIPAN in 2004. The change was meant to update the outdated term UFO (OVNI in French) to the term UAP, a change specifically recommended by the COMETA group. As of 2022, GEIPAN still serves this function.

The Personnel

The group behind the report was primarily made up of former auditors from the Institut des hautes études de la défense nationale (IHEDN). In English, the name translates to The Institute of Higher Studies of National Defense.

Chaired by then General Denis Letty of the Air Force (a former IHEDN official), the other named members of the group are 

The report authors also offer gratitude to some independent consultants, including:

Cover Image

The image chosen for the cover of the report comes from a 1971 Costa Rica survey of Lake Cote. The image was taken from 10,000 feet altitude and appeared to show a disc-shaped object that some estimates have shown to be 210 feet in diameter.

Although many media sources, including New York Times reporter Leslie Kean, have described this image as the “best UFO photo ever taken,” critics believe it is likely an artifact of light created by a chip in the camera’s lens and the angle of the sun, or a dust fragment in the laminate.

Cometa Report Contents

Prefaces and Forwards

The report is prefaced with three documents. The first was written by André Lebeau, the former president of CNES, the second by Air Force General Bernard Norlain, who is a former director of the IHEDN, and the third by Air Force General Denis Letty, who chaired COMETA.

Forward by André Lebeau:

Titled “Stripping the UFO phenomenon of its irrational layer,” the letter from Lebeau opens by addressing the stigma associated with studying the phenomena.

“It is not looked on highly in certain scientific circles to be preoccupied with phenomena that are deemed to come under the heading of popular mythology or that are, at any rate, outside the realm of science,” writes the former CNES head. He then notes the history of “falling stones,” in his country, where widely disbelieved and mocked tales of stones falling from the sky led to the verifiable discovery of meteorites.

“Phenomena of this type pose a preliminary problem for the scientific approach,” he notes before asking rhetorically, “does a scientific fact exist?” Lebeau then points out the difficulty in studying cases of unidentified objects in the sky using traditional scientific principles and methods, as the “phenomenon is not open to experimentation.”

Lebeau points out how astronomers used the scientific method to ultimately identify a number of previously misunderstood or elusive phenomena, including comets, novas, and eclipses.

“This is not true when the event is not only rare but discrete as well, and when there is a very small amount of evidence at each occurrence,” he counters, “which opens the door to various suspicions. Unidentified flying objects, or UFOs, fall into this category.”

Lebeau notes the difficulty in separating truly unidentified reports from atmospheric phenomena made by human-made objects, as they are all “mixed in” with each other. Still, he notes, once these reports are separated from the others, they are incredibly difficult to explain.

“Moreover, and above all,” Lebeau writes, “the existence of unexplained manifestations, both in the atmosphere and occasionally on the surface of the earth, inevitably gives rise to a fundamental question: are we alone in the universe?”

Lebeau uses the end of his letter to highlight the potential significance of the COMETA report and its findings, along with a plea to set aside any judgment and analyze the phenomena with the dispassionate approach of science.

“This report is useful in that it contributes toward stripping the phenomenon of UFOs of its irrational layer. When all is said and done, the question of determining whether or not those who created this layer believe in the existence of extraterrestrial visitors, concealed in a variety of phenomena that are surprising in appearance but commonplace with respect to their cause, is of no real importance. What a scientist believes is important in the conducting of his research because this is what motivates and drives him. But his belief is not important to the results of his research, nor does it have any effect on those results if he is meticulous.”

Preface from General Bernard Norlain:

Titled “Concrete problems are raised that call for a response in terms of action,” the preface by General Norlain opens with the origin of the COMETA group.

“When General Letty visited me in March 1995 at my office at IHEDN to explain to me his project for creating a new fact-finding committee on UFOs, I assured him of my interest and referred him to the management of the IHEDN Auditors Association (AA), which gave him its support,” he writes. “Knowing that some twenty years earlier the AA had produced and published a preliminary report on the subject in its bulletin, it was but time to update it.”

Norlain goes on to describe an event put on a month before his meeting with Letty, where the framework for what would become the COMETA group presented findings on “Unidentified Aerospace Phenomenon,” or simply, UAP. This is the first appearance of this term on record.

“Before a large public, some of our comrades, former pilots, spontaneously related their encounters with UFOs.” Norlain writes. “The person in charge of studying these phenomena at the CNES then presented his papers, and a well-known astronomer described a scientifically acceptable version of the extraterrestrial hypothesis.”

Norlain observes how Letty put together a “very impressive” list of experts with “high-level civilian and military degrees,” including “officers, engineers, and specialists in the physical sciences, life sciences, and social sciences” who were “able to deal with all aspects of the study.”

Norlain emphasizes that the COMETA report is “not a purely academic study” and that “concrete problems are raised, and not just for civilian and military pilots,” that call for a response.

Like Lebeau, Norlain ends his preface with a plea.

“I express the wish that the recommendations of COMETA, which are inspired by good sense, will be examined and implemented by the authorities of our country. The first report of the AA favored the creation within CNES of the only civilian government agency known in the world dedicated to the study of UFOs. May this new report, which is much more in-depth, give new impetus to our national efforts and to indispensable international cooperation. IHEDN will then have well served the nation and, perhaps, humanity.”

Forward by Denis Letty:

Titled “Consider all of the hypotheses," the forward by Letty opens with his primary thesis.

“The accumulation of well-documented sightings made by credible witnesses forces us to consider from now on all of the hypotheses regarding the origin of unidentified flying objects, or UFOs,” Letty writes, “and the extraterrestrial hypothesis, in particular.”

The military man also notes that although French authorities have yet to deem UAPs a threat, “it seemed necessary to the former auditors of the Institut des Hautes Etudes de- Defense Nationale (IHEDN) to take stock of the subject.”

Next, Letty acknowledges people who gave testimony or contributed to the study.

Letty concludes his letter acknowledging the members of COMETA, who he says “spared no effort for close to three years” to produce the final report.

Introduction and the Term UAP

The introduction opens with the history of UFO research in France, starting with IHEDN forming the “the unidentified flying objects file.” This led to the formation of GEPAN, then SEPRA, who the authors note “is in charge of this file.”

“Twenty years later, it seemed useful to us to take stock once again of the knowledge regarding these sightings,” the introduction states, “which are becoming of greater and greater interest to a large public that is often convinced of the extraterrestrial origin of UFOs.”

Highlighting the scientific approach to the phenomenon, the introduction states the following:

“For the sake of convenience with respect to language, we will use the term UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) generally instead of the more scientific term UAP (Unidentified Aerospace Phenomenon).”

The introduction continues by highlighting the seemingly real nature of the phenomenon studied, which they note “are completely unexplained despite the abundance and quality of data from them growing throughout the world.”

“On the ground, some sightings, like the Trans-en-Provence sighting in 1981, have been the subject of in-depth studies proving that something did in fact land on the ground and parked there,” the authors write. “Civilian and military pilots have provided gripping testimonies, often corroborated by radar recordings, as was the case recently in France. In view of the lack of irrefutable proof regarding the origin of these phenomena, the need for understanding persists.”

The Introduction concludes by outlining the three main sections of the report.

The first section includes UAP cases in France and abroad. The second section delves into scientific research currently underway that may help to explain the extraordinary propulsion systems behind the often incredible UAP flight characteristics described by witnesses. The third section focuses on proposals moving forward.

PART I “FACTS AND TESTIMONIES”

Titled “Facts and Testimonies,” the report's first official section includes three testimonies of French civilian and military pilots who encountered UFOs in flight, five major aeronautical cases in the world, three sightings from the ground, and four cases of close encounters in France.

Chapter 1: Testimonies of French Pilots

The three French cases in this section include a March 7, 1977 sighting by a Mirage IV pilot Herve Giraud, separate testimony from a fighter pilot who “wanted to preserve his anonymity” regarding a March 6, 1976 incident, and a January 29, 1994 sighting by the pilot of Air France Flight AF 3532.

In the first case, Giraud and his navigator both saw a “very bright glow” that appeared to be on a collision course with their aircraft. When contacted for confirmation, the Contrexville military radar station told the pilots they could not see the contact on their radar. In fact, the controller asked the pilot to check his oxygen levels to make sure he wasn’t hallucinating, a procedure the COMETA report notes is standard when the controller is “so surprised by the crew's question that he suspects an oxygen problem capable of causing a hallucination.”

The pilot and navigator note that the glow moved into position behind their aircraft and began to follow. After a series of high-speed maneuvers in their Mirage IV, all matched by the UAP, the pilots reported that the object had disappeared. However, it soon reappeared and once again began to follow. After a series of maneuvers to rid themselves “from what he now considered to be a real threat,” the pilot ultimately reports that the craft disappeared again.

The COMETA report notes two key takeaways from this incident.

First, only a combat aircraft could have performed the maneuvers witnessed, but such an aircraft would show up on the Contrexville radar. Second, the craft moved at supersonic speeds, but no sonic booms were reported on the ground.

In the second case, the anonymous fighter pilot (who the report notes later revealed himself as Colonel Claude Bosc) was actually a student pilot on a solo flight when his sighting occurred. Like the 1977 case, Bosc’s encounter involved a glowing light at a distance that also suddenly changed to an intercept course, heading directly for his aircraft. The pilot became so concerned that he threw his arms up to block his face as the green-colored light seemed about to ram his airplane head-on.

According to the COMETA report:

“The aircraft was completely enveloped in a very bright and phosphorescent green light. P (the pilot) saw a sphere (S) that avoided his aircraft at the very last moment and passed over his right wing, grazing it, all within a fraction of a second.”

Also, like in the previous case, the craft was not picked up on RADAR. However, the report notes that once Bosc was on the ground, other pilots told him they witnessed the green light from a distance.

In the final French case, the report looks at an Air France sighting involving the pilot, co-pilot, and airplane steward.  Unlike the previous cases, this sighting was of a solid craft during daylight hours and not a glowing light. The witnesses do note that they were surprised to see the craft change shape. “(It) first appeared in the form of a brown bell before transforming into a chestnut brown lens shape, then disappearing almost instantaneously on the left side of the aircraft, as if it had suddenly become invisible.”

Following the procedure, the Reims Air Navigation Control Center filed a near collision report with the Taverny Air Defense Operations Center (CODA). That effort resulted in confirmation that the object had been seen on RADAR.

“CODA did, in fact, record a radar track initiated by the Cinq-Mars-la-Pile control center at the same time that corresponded in location and time to the phenomenon observed,” the COMETA report notes. “This radar track, which was recorded for 50 seconds, did cross the trajectory of flight AF 3532 and did not correspond to any flight plan filed. It should be noted that the phenomenon disappeared from the view of the crew and the radar scopes at the same instant.”

Chapter 2: Aeronautic Cases Throughout the World

This chapter describes five significant cases that occurred in different parts of the world and which were the subject of an investigation by the authorities of the countries in question. In four cases, the objects were detected visually and by radar, and the fifth case involved multiple eyewitnesses.

The five incidents include sightings in Lakenheath (United Kingdom) in 1956 that were part of the U.S. Condon Report; a 1957 U.S. case described as “unidentified” in the Condon Report, a sighting in Tehran by a fighter pilot in 1976, a Russian sighting in 1990, and a 1995 incident in Brazil.

The first case, often referred to as the “Bentwaters” sighting, involved multiple radar tracks of objects over the military bases of Lakenheath and Bentwaters, bases operated jointly by the U.S. Air Force and the Royal Air Force of the United Kingdom. The tracks were spotted traveling at supersonic speeds as high as 4,000 mph, but none caused an audible sonic boom. The case is also noteworthy because the objects were sighted by pilots as well as radar, and they exhibited the ability to go from a stationary hover to supersonic speeds instantaneously.

The second case involves a series of sightings by U.S. military pilots operating over the southern portion of the United States near the Gulf Coast in 1957. Noteworthy is the fact that numerous “luminous” craft had been sighted by pilots over numerous locations, some performed supersonic maneuvers, many showed up on the radar, and nearly all emitted electromagnetic radiation in the microwave range.

The third case occurred over the skies of Iran in 1976. According to COMETA: 

“At around 11:00 p.m. on September 18, the Tehran airport control tower received several calls reporting a strange immobile luminous object in the sky above the Shemiran residential district in the northern part of the capital.”

After two members of the military spotted the craft from the ground, the General in charge ordered a Phantom F-4 to intercept the object. That aircraft reported a loss of navigation and communications when it got near to the object, so it returned to base, and a second F-4 was sent up. That piloted ultimately tried to shoot a sidewinder missile at the object, but the firing system did not respond to his control.

The fourth case covered in this section occurred in 1990 in Russia. In this case, several incidents were summarized by General Igor Maltsev, Air Defense Forces commander, in a report titled “UFOs on Air Defense Radars.” In that report, Maltsev summarized over one hundred sightings collected by unit commanders, stating:

"Based on the data collected by these witnesses, the UFO was a disk 100 to 200 meters in diameter. Two lights were flashing on its sides... In addition, the object turned around its axis and performed an S-shaped maneuver in both the vertical and the horizontal planes. Next, the UFO continued to hover above the ground, then flew at a speed two to three times greater than that of modern combat aircraft... The objects flew at altitudes ranging from 100 to 7000 m. The movement of the UFOs was not accompanied by any type of noise and was characterized by astounding maneuverability. The UFOs appeared to completely lack inertia. In other words, in one fashion or another, they had overcome gravity. At present, terrestrial machines can scarcely exhibit such characteristics.”

The fifth and final case covered in this section occurred in 1995 in San Carlos de Bariloche, Brazil. Specifically, crew and passengers aboard a Boeing 727 witnessed an object that exhibited extreme maneuverability, seemingly caused the lights at the airport and the town to go out, and lasted for several minutes. The same incident was witnessed by crew and passengers in a nearby plane, as well as people on the ground.

Chapter 3: Sighting from the Ground

This section covers three incidents in total. Two occurred in France, while the third occurred in Russia.

The first case involves a craft described by witnesses as “a sort of metal rugby ball preceded by a clearly detached green lens-shaped portion] with sparks issuing from the rear” flying near Antananarivo. Witnesses say the craft caused “shop lights” to go out, and when it flew over a local zoo, it evoked a “violent fright reaction” among the animals. “This is a surprising detail,” COMETA notes, “since normally these animals do not show any agitation when Air France planes pass by.”

The second case involves a sighting by a former Air Force pilot and his wife on the ground. In that case, they spotted a craft they described as:

The final cases highlighted in this section occurred at a Russian missile base in July 1989. Both incidents involve multiple witnesses who say they saw saucer-shaped craft performing unusual maneuvers.

“One object silently made jerky movements, with very abrupt starts and stops, and periods of immobility,” the report explains. “All of the witnesses saw a fighter jet attempt to approach one UFO, which escaped at lightning speed, giving the impression that the aircraft was hovering. Only the noise from the aircraft was heard, whereas the UFO must have reached supersonic speed.”

Chapter 4: Close Encounters in France

This section covers four incidents where witnesses describe close-up craft and/or occupants.

The first occurred in 1965 and is noteworthy because it was investigated by the Gendarmerie Nationale. Although officials could not confirm the witnesses’ story of a landed craft and beings, they were able to confirm some aspects. This included depressions on the ground where the witness says the craft landed, as well as a 100-meter section of lavender beds said to have died when the craft flew over.

“The investigation into the witness's character did not turn up any specific information that would permit one to suspect him of mythomaniac behavior or of staging a hoax,” the report concludes.

The second case took place in 1967 and involved a 13-year-old boy and his sister (age not provided) who witnessed a landed “sphere” shaped craft and what he thought were four “children” around the craft. When the boy called to them, the beings “flew” into the top of the sphere, and then the craft flew away.

Like the previous case, the gendarmerie who arrived were unable to confirm the sighting. However, they did note two significant observations:

“At the time, the children gave off a strong odor of sulfur,” the report notes, “but, above all, they suffered from physiological disorders, and their eyes ran for several days. These facts were certified by the family doctor and confirmed by their father, who was mayor of the village at the time.”

A follow-up investigation by GEPAN in 1978 also supported the children’s account.

"There is no flaw or inconsistency in these various elements that permit us to doubt the sincerity of the witnesses or to reasonably suspect an invention, hoax, or hallucination. Under these circumstances, despite the young age of the principal witnesses, and as extraordinary as the facts that they have related seem to be. I think that they actually observed them. "

The third case is a high-profile encounter known as the “Trans-en-Provence” incident, which occurred in 1981. It involves the landing of an “ovoid shaped” object that didn’t seem to have “any apparent projections, wings, control surfaces, or engine that would permit one to liken it to some type of aircraft.”

While there was only a single witness, an investigation by the gendarmerie and the GEPAN found evidence that something large and metallic had indeed landed at the specified location. Furthermore, chemical and soil analysis of the area revealed the following:

“The vegetation at the landing site - a sort of wild alfalfa - had been profoundly marked and affected by an external agent that considerably altered the photosynthesis apparatus. In fact, the chlorophylls, as well as certain amino acids of the plants, exhibited significant variations 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 trauma.”

The professor who conducted those tests said that the damage to plants and soil was most likely caused by “a powerful pulsed electromagnetic field in the high frequency (microwave) range.”

The final case covered in this section occurred in 1982 and is more commonly known as the “Amaranth” case. Here, a cellular biology researcher says he witnessed an “oval” shaped object slowly approaching from a distance and then hovering over his garden for 20 minutes. The craft suddenly rose straight up and disappeared, causing the grass underneath it to stand up vertically before settling back down.

COMETA notes that “its strangeness lies in the visible traces left on the vegetation and, namely, on an amaranth bush, the tips of whose leaves, which had completely dried up, led one to think that they had been subjected to intense electrical fields.”

Referencing an earlier study on the behavior of plants subjected to electrical fields, the COMETA team determined that “the electrical field, which was what probably caused the blades of grass to lift up, had to have exceeded 30 kV/m, and the effects on the amaranth that were observed were probably due to an electrical field that had to have far exceeded 200 kV/m at the level of the plant.”

Chapter 5: Counterexamples of Phenomena That Have Been Explained

This final section of Part I of the COMETA report covers two cases where witnesses reported unidentified objects that were later successfully identified.

The first incident occurred in 1988 when an auto mechanic witnessed “an enormous red ball” cross the road in front of him and roll down below the road. Authorities were called, and the ball was determined to be a decoration for a concert that had fallen off of a truck.

The second incident took place in 1979 in a small village within the Dombas region. There, four independent witnesses described a giant blue oval glow that lit up the sky during the night, with one remarking it was lighter than daytime and another saying that after the glow, all of the catfish in one of his fish hatchery tanks had died. There were also reports of lights going out around town.

A GEPAN/SEPRA investigation was able to determine rather quickly that a power line hanging over the fishery had melted. This not only accounted for the bright blue glow but also explained the power outages. The same analysis determined that the dead fish were “poisoned by drops of aluminum that fell in the tank for several minutes.”

Part II: The Extent of our Knowledge

Chapter 6: Organization of the Research in France

This chapter is the first in part two of the report and offers an in-depth history of the formal effort in France to understand the UAP phenomenon starting in 1974 and leading up to the time of the report. These include sections titled:

The early sections cover key moments, including the formation of a gendarmerie handbook that outlines the process and procedures officers should follow when investigating a UAP event. This effort resulted in over 3,000 case reports filed between 1974 and 1999.

As noted, the process not only refined the approach for investigators but had an unexpected consequence.

“All of these have permitted the characterization of a set of rare, natural and artificial phenomena that have occurred with varying frequency which would not have been able to be identified without this type of organization.”

Other significant components covered in chapter 6 include efforts to enlist help from civil and military aviation authorities as well as the private sector.

Chapter 7: Methods and Results of GEPAN/SEPRA

The next chapter covers the overall success of the processes adopted in chapter 6, specifically focusing on the “methods and results” that evolved from the government’s official investigation over that 25-year period.

Segments covered include:

One of the more significant segments covered in chapter 7 involves the classification system developed by the researchers to categorize sightings and events. These four main classifications are:

Category A: completely identified phenomenon,

Category B: a phenomenon that can probably be identified but which cannot be identified with certainty due to a lack of evidence,

Category C: a phenomenon that cannot be identified due to a lack of data,

Category D: a phenomenon that cannot be identified despite the abundance and quality of the data.

Significantly, the group notes the rarity and importance of UAP D cases.

“Category D UAPs represent 4 to 5% of the cases and are called UAP Ds. They include sightings of phenomena, some of which were close to the ground, a few meters from the witnesses. The strangest and most mysterious cases in this category are generally labeled CE3s (close encounters of the third kind) according to the classification proposed by Professor A. Hynek, an astronomer, and consultant to the USAF, within the context of the Blue Book Project.”

Notably, this segment also references a report made by General Twining of the U.S. Air Material Command at the dawn of the phenomenon. That report offered the following key conclusions:

1. The phenomenon reported is something real; it is not a matter of visions or imagination.

2. Disk-shaped objects the size of which is comparable to that of our aircraft do exist.

3. It is possible that some sightings correspond to natural phenomena.

4. The very high rate-of-climb observed, the maneuverability, and the escape maneuvers when the disks are detected lead one to assume that they are piloted or operated by remote control.

5. Most witnesses describe objects with a metal surface that are circular or elliptical in shape, the upper portion of which is dome-shaped, flying without making any noise in a formation of three to nine objects.

Chapter 7 ends on a significant note, and one often cited by media when referencing the COMETA report:

“One strong conclusion emerges from this set of facts: some UAP Ds do seem to be completely unknown flying machines with exceptional performances that are guided by a natural or artificial intelligence.”

Chapter 8: UFOs: Hypotheses, Modeling Attempts

Chapter 8 summarizes efforts to understand possible propulsion methods of UAPs, reports of physiological effects and electromagnetic effects, and finally, the overall nature and origin of UAPs.

Sections of this chapter include:

The segments on propulsion discuss then-cutting-edge technologies or concepts such as magnetohydrodynamic propulsion, particle beam propulsion (a.k.a. ion propulsion), nuclear propulsion, and the use of a planet’s gravity wells for propulsion. Notably, 21st-century concepts like directed energy propulsion, plasma magnets, and warp drives are not covered in this section. At the end of this section, the authors conclude that the technologies that may propel UAPs are not completely out of human reach.

“To sum up, for travel both in the atmosphere and in space, we can formulate reasonable hypotheses on flight without any apparent means of lift in the first case and on the crossing of great distances, up to an interstellar scale, in the second.”

The next section covers the reports of unusual effects reported by witnesses. Electrical effects on motor vehicles and physiological effects on humans are addressed. Technologies like proton beams and microwave emitters are discussed as possible causes.

The remainder of chapter 8 addresses the nature and origin of UAPs.

“Ascientific” hypotheses include things like spirits, the devil, psychological fantasies, and other supernatural phenomena. These are covered but ultimately dismissed, with the authors noting that “we cannot say a priori whether these hypotheses are true or false [since] they cannot be proven.”

The idea that UAPs represent a secret weapons platform by a superpower is also dismissed, with the authors noting “besides the fact that it would be extremely unwise to expose to the eyes of laymen and foreign experts in this way what there has been so much interest in concealing, it can be added today that throughout the decades during which these phenomena have occurred, the secret would have inevitably come out, especially if the political upheavals of recent years are taken into account.”

The authors are equally dismissive of the idea of UAPs representing disinformation attempts or holographic images.

Chapter 8 concludes with a section titled “Extraterrestrial Hypothesis.” Here, the authors discuss the adverse attitude of most modern science toward such a hypothesis but leave open a few possibilities. These mainly include speculative concepts like wormholes, as well as more scientifically supported ideas like anti-matter-powered generational starships that take generations to cross the depths of interstellar space.

While neither concept is overtly supported, the authors note that “both hypotheses have to their credit the fact that they place the UFO problem outside the realm of the paranormal and promote thought about the future of our planet.”

Chapter 9: Organization of the Research Abroad

This chapter looks at research efforts outside of France. They include:

The section on the U.S. dates from reports of a crashed UFO in Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947 up to the close of the U.S. Air Force’s official investigation of Operation Blue Book in 1969. Significantly, the authors note that a letter from Air Force Brigadier General Bolender in October 1969 stated that “the imminent conclusion of the Blue Book Project would not put an end to military reports concerning UFOs that constituted a threat to national security.”

The section on U.S. efforts also includes a detailed letter from Francois Louange, a photographic expert, which addresses efforts to determine a real UFO photo from a fake. 

The section also summarizes claims made by former U.S. Air Force Colonel Philip J. Corso in his book “The Day After Roswell.” Ultimately the authors consider Corso’s story credible.

The section on official research efforts in the U.K. talks about the formation of the government’s official office in 1964, as well as revelations made by former Ministry of Defense staffer Nick Pope.

“In his book, Nick Pope evokes various hypotheses to explain certain unidentified cases that were the subject of credible and detailed reports,” they write. “He strongly favors the extraterrestrial hypothesis and expresses the desire that his ministry takes seriously the potential threat that UFOs represent in his eyes.”

The section on Russian investigations dates back to 1979 but offers little detail due to the secretive nature of the Soviet Union during most of that time. They do highlight one specific case near an army missile base from 1989.

“The objects, which were sighted by seven military members, went from hovering to high speed and back again all without making any noise,” they write. “When it was approached by a Soviet fighter jet, one object escaped so quickly that it seemed to leave the fighter jet standing still in its tracks.”

Part III: UFOs and Defense

To open this section, the authors write:

“To date, a UFO has not been the certain cause of any accident or a fortiori any hostile act, at least officially; no UFO threat has materialized in France, although intimidation maneuvers have been confirmed.”

The authors follow this by noting the difficulty in keeping military projects secret and then once again offer up the credibility of the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

“In this third part, we set out to study, from a strategic, scientific, political, religious, and media standpoint, the consequences of this hypothesis based on present scientific knowledge.”

Chapter 10: Strategic Planning

This chapter theorizes on the potential nature and origins of extraterrestrial intelligence piloting UAPs. It includes sections titled:

In this section, the authors note some patterns in the descriptions of the most credible UAP sightings. These include “saucer, luminous sphere or cylinder, hovering followed by accelerations at lightning speed, the absence of noise, easily supersonic speed with no sonic boom, associated electromagnetic effects that interfere with the operation of nearby radio or electrical apparatus.”

When attempting to understand a possible intention of extraterrestrial civilization behind UAPs, the authors highlight the difficulty of such an effort.

“For the moment, they do not appear to be meddling in our affairs,” they write, “but it is advisable to ask ourselves what they are actually seeking. Do they want to invade earth? To preserve it from nuclear self-destruction? To learn about and preserve the patrimony that our civilizations have created over the span of centuries?”

The next section talks about the possibility that one or more human states have already made contact. A significant portion of this analysis covers the possibility that the United States may have recovered a flying saucer and its occupants (cadavers) in 1947 in Roswell. This possibility leads the authors to conclude that it is possible the U.S. has made this type of contact.

The final sections of Chapter 10 look at what steps can be taken to prepare for a possible extraterrestrial contact, both by France and by Europe at large.

“Whether or not UFOs are extraterrestrial in origin, the UFO phenomenon is already with us and, at any rate, requires critical vigilance on our part,” they write. “In particular, the phenomenon involves risks of destabilizing manipulations from a media, psychological, cultural, and religious standpoint: panic fear, world wars, psychoses created by sects or lobbies, etc.”

This section closes with the possibility of direct, peaceful contact or an invasion.

Chapter 11: Aeronautical Implications

The next chapter examines the aeronautical implications of a real UAP phenomenon, particularly in regard to air defense and air safety.

“How can one try to ignore a phenomenon that is manifested by the regular crossing of our air space by moving objects, the behavior of which suggests that they are piloted by an intelligent [being]?” they write. “Can one claim, because this appears to exceed our technical knowledge, that it does not fall within our purview? If we do nothing, the very principle of defense and air intelligence would be called into question.”

The next section, titled “Who is Involved,” looks at the role of the flight crew, Air Traffic Controllers, Meteorologists, and CNES engineers in observing, reporting, and analyzing aeronautical UAP events.

The following section, titled “How Do We Involve Aeronautics [Personnel]?” lays out methods and proposals for preparing the people covered in the previous section for UAP events. This includes sections on:

Chapter 12: Scientific and Technical Implications

This chapter contains four sections on the study and analysis of human technological evolution:

These sections list areas of human technological development that should be followed as they may continue to inform the understanding of UAPs. They include advancements in advanced propulsion technologies, particle beams, microwaves, extrasolar planets, and studies on the origin of biological life.

This chapter closes with a brief note regarding the need to study future human interstellar voyages and the technologies that may need to evolve to make them possible.

“It would be advisable to already be anticipating the measures to be taken, and the decisions to be made should events such as indubitable physical or radio contacts with an outside civilization take place,” the chapter concludes.

Chapter 13: Political and Religious Implications

Chapter 13 is designed as a thought experiment where the reader is challenged to think of the UAP phenomenon from the perspective of an extraterrestrial civilization visiting earth.

“An assessment of the impact that the formal confirmation of the existence of UFOs and extraterrestrial civilizations would have on the political and religious situation of the countries on earth could be a bit of a challenge,” they explain. “However, the task is less arduous when we try to put ourselves in the shoes of extraterrestrials who supposedly have chosen earth as a field of observation and/or intervention.”

This chapter is broken into numerous segments. These include:

A number of challenges are highlighted, with the author offering a wide array of potential consequences.

“Industrial-age civilizations are more skeptical than they formerly were and have more difficulty envisioning what is not a product of the immediately explainable or the simply measurable,” they write. “However, it is certain that the furnishing of irrefutable proof of the existence of extraterrestrials would leave a profound mark on populations such as ours today.”

“This issue is at the heart of our report,” they add.

Much of this chapter intentionally mirrors earth’s history with UAPs, including historical sightings and more modern phenomena. Once again, hinting at a Roswell-type incident, the authors offer the following thought:

“A serious technical accident affecting one of our spacecraft could be the start of an unofficial contact, a necessary settlement, or a colonization, or even, if necessary, an information disinformation campaign. It is also advisable to envision the sedition of some of our crews whom it might be necessary to disembark or who might decide on their own authority to live on one of the worlds discovered and, ultimately, mix with the indigenous populations, going against orders received, whether willingly or against their will, not to intervene or interfere in local affairs.”

Chapter 14: Media Implications

This chapter has three sections:

These examine the role of the media in dictating the overall public attitude to the UAP phenomenon, how that coverage affects trust or distrust in the government, and the attitudes the media should adopt to help scientists and defense officials avoid a negative stigma for studying the subject.

In the final section of this chapter, the authors offer the following note on the role of the media:

“The future of our planet lies in space. Whether it be overpopulation, a spirit of adventure, the search for other raw materials, a liking for conquest and colonization, or other, more or less altruistic, motivations, everything is pushing toward expansion far from humanity. Will we one day be extraterrestrials on other planets? When our probes orbit around more and more distant worlds and film them, what might hypothetical inhabitants think of them? We must prepare ourselves for this prospect, and the media can help educate the masses.”

Conclusions and Recommendations

This section is a summary of the entire COMETA report, along with a series of recommendations made by the committee. First, the authors speak to the reality of the phenomenon.

“They demonstrate the almost certain physical reality of completely unknown flying objects with remarkable flight performances and noiselessness, apparently operated by intelligent [beings].”

This leads to an analysis of the possible explanations for this physical reality. In that section, the authors offer the following:

“A single hypothesis sufficiently takes into account the facts and, for the most part, only calls for present-day science. It is the hypothesis of extraterrestrial visitors.”

“The purposes of these possible visitors remain unknown,” the authors add, “but they must be the subject of indispensable speculations and the development of prospective scenarios.”

This conclusion is followed by a series of detailed recommendations, including a gradual information campaign, more funding for SEPRA, the development of detection technologies that could help avoid collisions, the creation of a French office “at the highest State level,” the initiation of diplomatic efforts with the United States, and finally, informed speculation on the effort to make overt contact with UAPs as well as the possibility of an extraterrestrial landing.

Appendices

The end of the report contains seven appendices. They are:

The first four are straightforward looks at the present state of human technology and understanding in those areas, along with the possibility of the future of human space exploration as those technologies evolve.

Appendix 5 is an in-depth look at the Roswell incident, particularly in the area of disinformation. It includes a timeline of events from the 1947 crash to the reference of Roswell in the 1996 movie Independence Day. When discussing the possibility that the Roswell event was an actual crash of an extraterrestrial craft, the authors offer the following two thoughts.

“Very consistent interviews, affidavits, and video testimonies describe the discovery of material that no one knows how to make in our time: a thin sheet that looks like metal with very great resistance and that is so elastic that after it has been crumpled up into a ball, it spontaneously returns to its initial shape without the least sign of a residual fold.”

“It does seem that the crash occurred on July 4, Independence Day, at around 2330 hours. The date and time symbolize American power, whence the following question [arises]: if the crash was, in fact, that of an extraterrestrial vessel, was it truly an accident, or was it a deliberate crash constituting a message and/or the authenticator?”

This analysis leads to an in-depth discussion on the role of disinformation, both in the Roswell case and around the UAP phenomenon in general.

Appendix 6 attempts to offer a historical chronology of events before Roswell, only in reverse order. This includes the phantom rockets witnessed over Sweden in 1946, the mystery airships seen in the skies of the United States and Great Britain between 1880 and 1900, and finally sightings from Greco-Roman antiquity until the industrial age.

Appendix 7, titled “Reflections on Various Psychological, Sociological, and Political Aspects of the UFO Phenomenon,” is broken into a number of sub-sections. They are:

When talking about secrecy, the authors offer the following thoughts and conclusions:

“We are currently not aware of the extent of the knowledge that U.S. military personnel have gleaned from all of the studies that they have conducted on this subject either based on sightings or, as has sometimes been written, based on materials that have allegedly been recovered,” they write.

“Whatever the case, it is clear that the Pentagon has had, and probably still has the greatest interest in concealing, as best as it can, all of this research, which may, over time, cause the United States to hold a position of great supremacy over terrestrial adversaries while giving it a considerable response capacity against a possible threat coming from space.”

“Within this context, it is impossible for them to divulge the sources of this research and the goals pursued because that could immediately point any possible rivals down the most beneficial avenues.”

“Cover-ups and disinformation (both active as well as passive) still remain, under this hypothesis, an absolute necessity. Thus it would appear natural that in the minds of U.S. military leaders, secrecy must be maintained as long as possible.”

“Only increasing pressure from public opinion, possibly supported by the results of independent researchers, by more or less calculated disclosures, or by a sudden rise in UFO manifestations, might perhaps induce U.S. leaders and persons of authority to change their stance.”

The authors conclude with this thought:

“It does not seem that we have arrived at that point yet.”

End Sections

The COMETA report ends with two more sections. 

The first is titled “UFO, Unidentified Flying Object….”

“Since 1947, the subject has disturbed, fascinated, called out,” this section opens.

A quick summary of the COMETA group follows before the authors close with the following thought.

“Are these secret terrestrial craft? In some cases, perhaps. Are we in the presence of craft of non-terrestrial origin? This hypothesis cannot be ruled out. If it were to prove correct, it would be loaded with consequences for Defense.”

The final section of the COMETA Report is a glossary of terms.

Impact and Legacy of the COMETA Report

 While not an official government-sponsored report, the COMETA still has historical significance. First, the lofty stature of its authors and their respective positions within the country’s military and space agencies offers an air of credibility to the report. Second, the report is the first document to propose using the term UAP instead of the stigmatized “UFO.” Third, the report’s recommendations led to the creation of GEIPAN, which still studies UA cases in France today.

Finally, the report is significant in its conclusion that the best explanation for the evidence is an extraterrestrial one.

Resources