Re: Two French Reports On Eric Julien/Jean Ederman
From: Michael Salla <exopolitics.nul>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:31:16 -1000
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:54:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Two French Reports On Eric Julien/Jean Ederman
>From: Mike Jamieson <mike.jamieson.nul>
>Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:51:31 -0700
>Subject: Two French Reports On Eric Julien/Jean Ederman
>Eric Julien/Jean Ederman was reportedly piloting an alien space
>ship when he disappeared for awhile (so it is claimed). I was
>given these two reports that were based on investigations of
>this claim. Unfortunately, they are in French. But, I'm sure
>some list members will be able to read them!
>Julien/Ederman reportedly was discovered NOT to be actualizing
>his pilot training on an alien ship, but instead had returned to
>his old home on French Reunion Island. He reportedly emailed his
>girlfriend from there in order to end a police investigation
>into his disappearance.
Thanks for giving Eric Julien (aka Jean Ederman) the opportunity
to respond to the two reports circulated on the forum which are
critical of various aspects of his claimed extraterrestrial
experiences. I sent your post to him and include his response
below. Let me add that Eric Julien has written a very detailed
book explaining the scientific basis of the extraterrestrial
technologies he claims to have learned about through his various
experiences. A number of promient French researchers/scientists
have reviewed his book and thought very highly of it, and
concluded that it is not a plagiarised work which was one of the
intitial criticisms leveled against him. I have read one of
these critiques and it is clear that the author who was
initially very sceptical was impressed by Eric's work.
I think that an objective standard for assessing Eric's claims
of direct experience with extraterrestrial technologies is to
analyse the written material and detailed diagrams he has
provided of these. I think that those interested in Eric's
claims regarding the "Science of Extraterrestrials" can begin by
reading his book in the original French (an English translation
is underway); or by reading some of his shorter articles and the
reviews of this book (some translated into English) which are
available at: http://www.exopoliticsinstitute.org/Institute-
I would recommend to you that you read his work or objective
reviews of it, and reach your own independent assessment of the
value of Eric's work rather than point to second hand sources
that appear prejudiced for reasons that Eric describes in his
Eric Julien's Response:
The two links given by Mike Jamieson is the same article
written by the French journalist Marie-Therese de Brosses in
July 2004. This journalist used to write articles in a "people
magazine" she dares to qualify serious. She has written a book
on abductees in 1995 and claimed she had investigated in being
in touch with these abductees. Her article about me has been
published on different websites in France. In reality, in my
case, she has never made any serious investigation, except from
I have written an article of 50 pages in November 2004 to
denounce the accusation of plagiarism of Russian scientists from
a mathematics Professor, and to prove the opposite. Many
webmasters have put off the journalist article, except four of
them (including the two links). The serious ufologists have
understood that my demonstration was pretty formal. Three months
later, my critics has recognized publicly his error after having
read my book, "the science of extraterrestrials" (being
translated in English, and already published in French).
We have had, Marie-Therese de Brosses and me, different private
email exchanges. In March 2005, and after a long period of
silence from me, she had firstly accepted to change her article
regarding the accusation of plagiarism of my scientific concepts
coming from my ET contacts once this accusation was denied by
the Professor she has referred to. She has never publicly
recognized her mistake. Why ?
The second part of her article speaks about my disappearance in
March 2004. She refers to the police investigator who has
"discovered" me on the Reunion Island two months later. You have
to know that many information were unknown or avoided by the
1 - The visit card of the official investigator (policeman)
precise: "specialist in: ufology, occult science, amazing
monsters & paranormal phenomena"! (I have his card).
2 - he wanted to be married with my girlfriend during my
disappearance (I have got written evidences of his attempts).
She obvioulsy refused.
3 - he has alerted the police headquarter about my
disappearance, but nobody went to the close encounter
place...except a military division two days after my
disappearance (I have a testimony of this).
4 - I have met several times policemen on the Reunion Island
before the investigation itself without having any relation with
their "questions" regarding an other person.
5 - A military helicopter has overflown my house on the Reunion
Island less than 30 meters above, and then has made a 360=B0 turn
over a future UFO landing area indicated in my computer files.
This helicopter came from a military ship. It never comes (or
very rarely) in Reunion Island.
6 - My Close Encounter (CE4) in the night of my disappearance
has lasted about three hours in physical time, but many days in
higher time density. That is probably why channelers have
received information speaking about a long experience. In
addition, other experiences on the Reunion Island have occured
after this night. As author about abductions, Marie-Therese de
Brosses is supposed to know the existence of the "missing time",
except in her "investigation".
7 - Piloting a space-time craft is not so rare. Most of the
human pilots are children. Their testimonies couldn't be taken
8 - I have had largely the time to take a plane after this
experience (CE4) and to stay on the island.
9 - Marie-Therese de Brosses never speaks about my professionnal
experience in her article (fighter pilot trainee, military air
traffic controler, executive pilot on jets, station manager for
an airliner, airport manager on international airports).
10 - I have never declared that "I wanted not to be discovered
for ever" as she claimed in the article. I was already writing
my book to return to the public arena.
11 - I have asked my girlfriend after my experience and my
travel to the Reunion Island not to go on with the police
investigation due to the trap that I knew she will be the victim
on the radio station. Marie-Therese de Brosses ignored that we,
my girlfriend and me, have had a previous close encounter (CE4)
experience in september 2003, six month before, in the SAME UFO
landing area, close to the house. That is why, she believed me
when I sent her my message!
12 - It is clear that Marie-Therese de Brosses has used well
known journalistic techniques to ridiculize a whole situation
which was complex for many people. Her disinformation act is
obvious for the real investigators.