From: Gildas Bourdais <gbourdais@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 18:20:17 +0200
Fwd Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 15:32:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Symbols [UMMO] - Bourdais


 >From: Gregory Gutierez <greguti@free.fr>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 00:15:27 +0200
 >Subject: Re: Symbols [UMMO]


 >>From: Edoardo Russo <edoardo.russo@tiscali.it>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 18:09:01 +0200
 >>Subject: Re: Symbols [UMMO] - Gonzalez Manso


Hello Gregory and the List,

You wrote:

 >I require the right to be intrigued and captivated by this work.
 >And thus the right of trying to find who really wrote these
 >letters (a bunch of writters? Pena alone? Pena then his
 >followers? Someone else? Ummits for the planet Ummo, at the end,
 >why not!).

<snip>

 >And that's why I do question the "Jordan Pena did it"
 >explanation: did he have the talent to do this alone or even
 >with friends? I was serious when I said I wanted to know the
 >biography of this man! What he did, what he published, what were
 >his own beliefs and his fights? I want to know if the content of
 >the letters actually fit the character and personality of Pena
 >as we could picture it throught his works and activities.


I have quoted already (and you must have read me) the book of
Jean Pollion in which he reveals the contents of a letter
written in 1998 by Jordan Pena to the Spanish specialist of Ummo
Ignacio Darnaude. Pollion got a copy of the letter, in which
Pena confesses that he had "technical and financial help from a
North-American organization" (p. 97 of the book).

Pollion tries to minimize this new confession by stressing that
he contradicts himself, having claimed in 1993 that he had acted
alone. This is funny because his first confession had been
dismised by the Ummo fans, arguing that he could not have
written all the letters alone.

Actually, everybody guessed that, but all what is known about
Ummo and Pena confirms his main role in the hoax!

Here are two references of interestting revelations on Jordan
Pena, for those who, like Gutierez, want for more information on
Pena. The first one is an article by Spanish ufologist Manuel
Carballal, which was published by Scott Corrales in his review
"Inexplicata". Its title:

"The Ummo Affaire: Sects, Saucers, Sex and Secret Services"

It is on the Inexplicat web site:

http://www.inexplicata.com/samizdat/winter97/ummo_affaire.html

According to this author, Pena was connected to the Spanish
secret services SECED and CESID. He quotes Javier Sierra as
having a similar opinion. If true, it is not necessarily in
contradiction with Pena's confession (secret services often work
together, don't they?).

In the same text, you will learn how Spanish ufologists
discovered in 1988, by pure chance, the friendship between
Jordan and his accomplice Ortuno, who admitted it.

Another interesting text was written by Scott Corrales and was
published in the "Ohio UFO Notebook" Number 22, Year 2001. The
title: "People are strange: Unusual cults examined"

A good part of it is devoted to another hoax of Jordan Pena,
called the "Pirophos" cult. See the paragraph:

"Pirophos, UMMO's Little Brother"

It was a sort of psycho-social experiment imagined by Pena to
take the measure of human credibility.

Pena succedeed in convincing a number of people of the existence
of a "Great God Pirophos", by producing before them a strange
blue light in a dark room.

Jordan Pena explained later to an interviewer that it was "a
basic yet uncommon triboluminescent phenomenon which requires
the use of habitual and easily digestible substances".

The funniest point is that Pena had later a hard time explaining
to some of the believers (not all) that it was a hoax: they
would not believe it!

BTW, Scottt, if you read this, could you confirm the story to
the List?

The same with Ummo: some people still "want to believe"!

You also wrote:

 >But on the other hand, I think the Ummit case doesn't need the
 >ufo community in order to survive. Look at the book by Jean
 >Pollion in which a whole chapter is dedicated to "Ummo and the
 >ufologists" (Pollion is very critical about ufologists). The
 >books by Jean-Pierre Petit, in the 90s, are also quite negative
 >about the ufologists. Ummologists don't appreciate ufologists
 >and ufologists don't like ummologists.

Yes, Pollion is full of contempt for ufology and ufologists
in his book. He makes clear that he is far above the lot.

For instance:

Page 27: "A litterary style of treatment of information was
born: ufology. Fortunately, the subject exhausted itself".

In his chapter 3, "Ummo and Ufology", Pollion contends that we
still don't know with certainty if we deal with material
phenomena, or only optical, or "parapsychological, or unkwown
psychological actions in the head of witnesses." (p 101) He
dismisses even classic cases such as Trans-en-Provence and
"L'Amarante" in France (thoroughly studied, and confirmed by the
official GEPAN in the 80's).

And he excludes, of course, a case like Roswell (p 101), and
abductions as well:

"I exclude the "abductions", the nature of which belongs more,
in my opinion, to psychological disorders" (p 103).

Pollion explains that he got involved in ufology by reading the
book of Jean-Pierre Petit about Ummo, After that he spent all
his free time studying Ummo, and it is clear that he has studied
little else than Ummo, regarding Ufos.

And now the Gutierez confession :

 >Compared to the huge popular success of Roswell,
 >the Ummo case is a little piece of shit. But
 >I find it far more interesting, The Ummo story is better
 >written, thanks to the author :)

Gregory, The Roswell Case is not a "story".


Gildas Bourdais