UFOs and Defense: What Should We Prepare For?

About the Author

The COMETA report has no single author in the conventional sense; it is a collective work credited to the association COMETA (Comité d'Études Approfondies, "Committee for In-Depth Studies"), chaired by French Air Force General Denis Letty, a general of the "2nd section" (no longer on active duty) and an auditor of the Institut des Hautes Études de Défense Nationale (IHEDN). According to General Bernard Norlain's preface, Letty brought him the idea of a new committee on UFOs in March 1995, and Norlain referred him to the IHEDN Auditors' Association, which backed it. Informal work began around 1996, and the group was registered as an association under the 1901 law on February 24, 1999. Detailed accounts of Letty's earlier commands circulate online but could not be confirmed from a primary source, so they are not repeated here.

The report's published, non-exhaustive membership list names nine members besides Letty: Air Force General Bruno Le Moine; Vice-Admiral Marc Merlo; weapons engineer General Pierre Bescond; weapons engineer and physicist General Alain Orszag; honorary engineer general Dr. Jean Dunglas; Christian Marchal, chief engineer of the Corps des Mines and research director at ONERA, France's national aerospace research agency; Michel Algrin, a doctor of political science and practicing lawyer; Denis Blancher, a chief superintendent in the French national police; and Françoise Lépine of the Fondation pour les Études de Défense. External contributors credited by name include Jean-Jacques Velasco, then the serving head of SEPRA at CNES, France's national space agency; photo-analysis specialist François Louange; former Air France technical director Edmond Campagnac; and three military and civilian pilots who testified, including Jean-Charles Duboc. The book's preface was written by General Bernard Norlain, IHEDN's former director, and its preamble by André Lebeau, president of CNES in 1995–1996. On the "retired generals" question, some critics dismissed the group as a "bunch of retired people"; a page on Patrick Gross's site replies that at publication Letty and most listed members were still professionally active.

None of COMETA's members had any documented prior professional specialization in UAP investigation as a discipline; their collective credibility rests entirely on adjacent defense, engineering, aerospace, and scientific careers rather than on any pre-existing ufological expertise, a distinction the report's own authors do not obscure. What none of the source material located for this article could verify is any COMETA member named "Alain Boyer"; no independently corroborated membership list, including the report's own published roster and Patrick Gross's detailed independent documentation, includes that name, and this article does not include him among the report's credited contributors on that basis.

Historical Context & Origins

By the mid-1990s, France already had one of the longest-running official government UAP study programs of any nation: CNES engineer Claude Poher founded GEPAN (Groupe d'Études des Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-identifiés) inside the space agency in 1977, and its successor SEPRA, headed through most of the 1990s by Jean-Jacques Velasco, had already investigated cases like the 1981 Trans-en-Provence landing with outside laboratory analyses. COMETA did not run investigations of its own; its chapter on GEPAN/SEPRA describes GEPAN's method and four-tier A–D classification, and its central argument builds on the residual "Category D" (unexplained despite good data), which it put at "4 to 5% of the cases." The report also notes that GEPAN itself was created on the recommendations of a 1976 IHEDN committee chaired by General Blanchard of the Gendarmerie.

The report's authors framed their work as a defense question rather than ufology. Letty's opening statement says that "the accumulation of well-documented sightings made by credible witnesses forces us to consider from now on all of the hypotheses," and that "although no characterized threat has been perceived to date in France," the former IHEDN auditors thought it necessary to take stock. Norlain's preface notes that some twenty years earlier the auditors' association had published a preliminary report in its bulletin and that it was "time to update it." Letty's IHEDN study circle began meeting informally around 1996 to examine the UAP question's national-security dimensions: what French air-defense doctrine, and French diplomacy, should do if some fraction of these cases really did involve technology beyond current human capability.

COMETA was formally registered as a nonprofit association under French law on February 24, 1999, only months before the finished report's release, capping roughly three years of informal committee work, case review, and consultation with Velasco and outside specialists. The finished 90-page document was sent to President Jacques Chirac and to Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, whose office is the Hôtel Matignon (Couprie and Kragel write that Velasco handed Jospin his copy in person), before its public release as a special issue of the French weekly magazine VSD on July 16, 1999 — a delivery sequence its authors clearly intended to lend the document gravity, and one secondary coverage has since, repeatedly and inaccurately, mistaken for evidence that the French government itself had commissioned or endorsed it. It had not: COMETA was, at every point in its existence, a private nonprofit association, never a government commission or ministry body.

Core Arguments & Key Concepts

Because this entry covers a defense-policy report rather than a conventional argumentative trade book, its "core arguments" section describes how the document is actually built, not a thesis an individual author set out to persuade a reader of. The finished report is organized into three parts plus a conclusion. Part One presents a selection of case studies its authors judged particularly well-documented, drawing on both French and foreign material: the 1981 Trans-en-Provence landing, the September 1976 Tehran incident, the 1957 RB-47 electronic intercept case, the 1956 Lakenheath–Bentwaters radar-visual case in England, Mirage IV pilot René Giraud's 1977 account, the January 28, 1994 Air France Flight AF 3532 encounter, cases in Russia (1990) and Argentina (Bariloche, 1995), and four French close encounters: the July 1, 1965 Valensole case, Cussac (1967), Trans-en-Provence and the "Amaranth" case at Nancy (1982).

Part Two steps back from individual cases to review how research is organized in France (GEPAN/SEPRA, the Gendarmerie, the Air Force, civil aviation) and abroad, GEPAN/SEPRA's methods and results, and the physical models and "global explanations" scientists have proposed. Part Three examines strategic, aeronautical, scientific, political, religious and media implications and ends with six recommendations: inform decision-makers and pilots; boost SEPRA's human and material resources; consider UFO detection by space-surveillance systems; create a unit "at the highest State level" to work with SEPRA; initiate diplomatic demarches to the United States, with the support of other states and even the European Union; and reflect on the measures to take "in the event of a spectacular and indisputable manifestation of a UFO." None can be shown to have been adopted. (An earlier version of this article said the report asked for "OVNI" to be replaced by "PAN" and that GEIPAN's 2005 name adopted the idea; the report makes no such recommendation, and "PAN" had been in GEPAN's name since 1977.)

The report's own language on its central conclusion is more hedged, on the page, than most summaries of it suggest. It says some twenty years of CNES, Gendarmerie and Air Force studies "demonstrate the almost certain physical reality of completely unknown flying objects with remarkable flight performances and noiselessness, apparently operated by intelligent [beings]," and that "a single hypothesis sufficiently takes into account the facts": "the hypothesis of extraterrestrial visitors." In the French text the extraterrestrial hypothesis is "by far the best scientific hypothesis" (the online English translation renders "de loin la meilleure" as "far from the best"), "not categorically proven" but with "strong presumptions" in its favour; the purposes of any visitors "remain unknown." The "most probable" wording often attributed to the report comes from press summaries. Reading the conclusion directly is the clearest way to see the distinction the report draws between "the phenomenon is real" and "we know what it is," a distinction that has frequently collapsed in how the document circulates online.

A structural feature of the report worth noting for any reader approaching the book directly: its evidentiary base is entirely secondhand. COMETA conducted no independent case investigation, laboratory testing, or original data collection of its own; every physical-trace and radar claim it makes is inherited, with attribution, from prior official investigations — above all GEPAN's own 1981 laboratory work at Trans-en-Provence. The report's contribution is argumentative and institutional synthesis, not new observational or forensic evidence, a distinction its own authors did not conceal but which its reputation has often obscured.

Key Cases & Evidence Discussed

This report's organizing subject is inseparable from this site's own Case File #124, COMETA Report Context, which documents the committee's full institutional history, its timeline from the 1996 IHEDN study circle through the 2007 GEIPAN archival publication, and its DISPUTED classification at a depth this article does not repeat. Where that case file weighs whether COMETA functioned as a credible scientific body, this article's narrower job is describing what a reader actually encounters inside the report's own 90-page text.

The Trans-en-Provence landing (January 8, 1981) receives the report's most substantive physical-evidence treatment. COMETA's summary stresses the plant analyses by INRA biochemist Michel Bounias, who found chlorophyll and amino-acid changes in nearby alfalfa that decreased with distance from the marks and suggested a powerful pulsed microwave-range field as a cause. The report attributes this work to GEPAN's investigation, in which Jean-Jacques Velasco took part, rather than claiming it as its own. The often-quoted figures of four to five tonnes and 300–600°C are not in GEPAN's Technical Note 16 or in COMETA's summary.

The September 1976 Tehran incident, in which Iranian F-4 Phantom crews reported instrument and weapons-system failures while approaching a bright object, and the July 1957 RB-47 electronic intercept case over the U.S. Gulf Coast, supply the report's strongest international radar and electronic-countermeasure evidence, both cited at length in Part One's case-study section.

The report's discussion of a 1994 Air France Flight AF 3532 encounter draws on testimony from Captain Jean-Charles Duboc, who was later interviewed directly by COMETA under Letty's chairmanship after reporting the sighting to SEPRA — one of the few instances where a report contributor's own firsthand testimony, rather than archival case review, fed directly into the document's content.

Critical Reception & Controversies

If COMETA's authors expected their collective defense and engineering credentials to buy the report a respectful hearing in the French press, the reception was close to the opposite. Rossoni, Maillot and Déguillaume (Les OVNI du CNES, 2007) list the few general-news headlines: "Ovni soit qui mal y pense" in Libération (which they date February 21, 1999, though the Libération piece with that headline traced for this article is sociologist Pierre Lagrange's opinion column of July 21, 1999); "Frappes chirurgicales contre les Martiens" ("Surgical strikes against the Martians") in the satirical weekly Le Canard enchaîné, July 21, 1999; and Marc Traverson's "Ovnis: un rapport délirant" ("UFOs: a deranged report") in L'Express, August 5, 1999. Traverson found the report "peu crédible," called COMETA a "private committee steered by a general," and quoted Lagrange's view that it gave credit to stories American ufologists filed under folklore; Letty replied in a published right of reply. According to Gildas Bourdais, France's two main national dailies, Le Monde and Le Figaro, "said nothing," while Dimanche Ouest-France ran an interview with Letty on August 15, 1999.

The sharpest sustained critic has been Pierre Lagrange, who wrote in 2007 that COMETA was not the work of intelligence or military-analysis specialists but of people whose hobby was ufology and who sought respectability by displaying their careers as engineers and officers. A critique by French skeptic Claude Maugé in the Belgian journal Inforespace (cited as no. 100, June 2000) is mentioned in secondary sources, but it could not be located for this article, so its arguments are not summarized here.

A separate and recurring line of criticism concerns the report's own framing as an argument from authority: because COMETA's central persuasive asset is the collective professional standing of its named contributors rather than new evidence or peer-reviewed analysis, critics have pointed out that impressive credentials in defense, engineering, or aerospace administration do not, by themselves, constitute expertise in UAP case investigation as a discipline — a criticism that does not depend on doubting any individual member's sincerity or actual career record. A related and more specific dispute concerns COMETA's own formal status: commentators have noted that COMETA was, at every point, a private nonprofit association rather than any kind of officially chartered body, and that some press and popular coverage describing it as an "official French report" or a body with genuine institutional backing beyond its members' individual resumes has overstated its actual standing.

Reception outside France followed a different, quieter track. Journalist Leslie Kean wrote about the report in the Boston Globe in May 2000 ("UFO theorists gain support abroad, but repression at home") and in the Irish Independent in June 2000, abridged from a longer article offered to VSD; in her 2010 book it is the subject of chapters by Letty and Velasco. Gildas Bourdais's English summary, "The French Report on UFOs and Defense: A Summary," hosted by the Center for UFO Studies, became for many English-speaking readers their main point of access to the report's contents, and its sympathetic framing contributed to an international reputation for the document somewhat more authoritative than its private, unofficial status supports.

Influence & Legacy

The report's concrete policy legacy is thin. None of its six recommendations — informing decision-makers and pilots, boosting SEPRA, using space surveillance, creating a high-level state unit, a diplomatic approach to the United States, and contingency planning — can be shown to have been adopted. SEPRA was not expanded; it was replaced in 2005 by GEIPAN (Groupe d'Études et d'Informations sur les Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non identifiés), whose "PAN" terminology dates back to GEPAN's founding in 1977 rather than to COMETA. According to Jospin's chief of staff, the Prime Minister read and annotated the report "to mark his interest," but COMETA member Christian Marchal later said that "when we handed it in, there was no official reaction."

In spring 2007 GEIPAN posted a copy of the report on its own website, and on May 11, 2007, after some readers objected, it issued a statement that the publication "does not signify in any way an approval of the report by CNES," adding that its Steering Committee had been able to judge "the seriousness of this work, independently of the conclusions, which commit only their authors." That statement is the clearest documentary evidence that COMETA was never an official French government report, despite how often it is described that way in secondary and tertiary UFO literature.

The report's underlying argument — that France's unexplained UAP residue deserved sustained, serious study — found an echo in a separate organization. In 2008 the 3AF (Association Aéronautique et Astronautique de France) set up a technical commission on unidentified aerospace phenomena, later named SIGMA, whose May 31, 2010 progress report said COMETA's central hypothesis "cannot, even today, be faulted and remains perfectly credible." Renamed SIGMA2 in 2013, the commission studies cases that remain unexplained and published a progress report in 2021 — the closest thing COMETA's call for serious study ever received to ongoing follow-through, though from a professional society rather than the state.

In the English-language UFO/UAP literature, this book's afterlife has been disproportionate to its actual documented institutional weight. Leslie Kean's influential 2010 book UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record situates COMETA within a broader international pattern of credentialed officials speaking on the subject, and Kean wrote about the report for the Boston Globe in 2000. This site's own UFO Briefing Document essential-reading entry (ER-089) documents a more direct genealogical link in the other direction: former U.S. Ambassador to France Evan Galbraith's wife Marie Galbraith's 1995 Rockefeller-funded UFO Briefing Document was distributed in Paris to figures including CNES, and the COMETA report mentions that Rockefeller-sponsored briefing document, sent in 1995 to about a thousand personalities worldwide.

The Book

As an Amazon Associate, OverClassified may earn from qualifying purchases made through this link, at no extra cost to you.

Related Cases & Theories

Essential Viewing