UFO Conjecture(s)

Monday, November 07, 2011

French reward offer for UFO "proof" --1954



This is the last paragraph, confirming a plethora of flying saucer incidents in France, in 1954:

21 Comments:

  • Ah, and thus the '54 French Wave was but the mischievous graspings of a peasant class seeking rewards, n'est-ce pas?

    That is, I suppose some would seek to argue such a point if the date didn't fall on the backside of the sightings curve.

    I wonder if the French press, from which the article was apparently sourced, were as loose with their terminology? 'Martians' being something of a pejorative along the lines of 'little green men.'

    Perhaps a sullen Frenchman released his captured Martian on the 2nd of January after missing the dead-line? Asimov could have spun a fine short story from such a scenario. It reminds me of one I've just begun about two kids capturing Martians to sell to the circus.

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Monday, November 07, 2011  

  • Let's not be cynical, Kandinsky.

    Farm folk aren't so mercenary, are they?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, November 07, 2011  

  • Yup, cynical or jaded.

    It'd be interesting to see the French translation to compare terminology.

    With the several hundred recorded witnesses, I wonder how many weren't reported? This doesn't mean that they weren't all fabricated (who knows?), but 'tip of the iceberg' is a predictable metaphor that gains attention.

    From a PSH perspective, perhaps the French were encouraged, or less dissuaded, to make reports when the US policy of misidentification/hoax discouraged their American equivalents?

    Somewhere in the middle would then be more representative.

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Monday, November 07, 2011  

  • Kandinsky:

    If only one story were true...

    But I think the bulk of them were.

    And that influx of 1954 was significant in some way.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, November 07, 2011  

  • Greetings,
    It is a pity french UFO-skeptic and astronomer specialist Dominique Caudron is not here (But he is in our french forum).

    He is one the best specialist of the 1954 french "UFO" wave, having solved many the best cases you have in picture in the other thread (many cases are Moon in low alt misindentifications, there is probable hoaxes, etc). He have debated/debunked the orthoténie theory proposed by French ETH proponent Aimée Michel regarding this wave too.

    Will see next week if he can write something for our anglophones friends about (I promise nothing).

    Regards,
    Gilles Fernandez

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Tuesday, November 08, 2011  

  • So, Gilles...

    You accept the skeptical view that those who reported seeing little men and strange craft were actually befuddled by the moon or other astral elements.

    I think that, maybe, the folks actually saw what they said they saw.

    And the 1954 French wave represented an influx of some very odd things -- some ethereal, some tangible.

    One would need to know where the Moon or other astronomical objects were, in conjunction with the sightings; that is, was the moon in the observable proximity of those witnesses whom Caudron thinks misperceived what they saw?

    I am not quick to discount Aime Michel's orthotony theory ether as a study by my organization, for non-UFO incidents, in the 1970s showed that things do happen along straight lines, and one can predict when and where similar incidents will occur by using straight lines and periodic dating.

    A mine disaster, for instance, will occur several days apart, and happen in threes (three disasters), along a line that one can extrapolate from point A to point B to point C, using a ratio for distance.

    But the straight line is a must, as is the ratio for locale.

    So, we think (I think) that Michel was on to something.

    Moreover, I think people who reported little creatures and their weird craft, in France, in1954 (and Italy also) gave accurate, as best as witneses can, accounts of what they saw.

    What they saw may be in question, but I don't think it was the Moon or any other astral object.

    However, one explanation is as good as any other, since no explanation really explains any of the sightings....not so far anyway.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, November 08, 2011  

  • Re,
    The only thing I'm sure is what I learned from the IFOlogy (yes IFOlogy). I mean from the cases which have been solved. What we can learn?

    In few words, that what is contained in the UFO casuistic residual cases exist already in the IFO casuistic. We lack probably the crucial information to identify the case, or the investigation was not enough, etc.

    I have never found a "discernibility" between UFO/IFO (that's not new), as no one (yes I humblely know Battelle SR 14, Vallée/Poher studies, etc, but it have been "solved" too and there are several statistical problems or biais).

    So, I'm a PSH "proponent" yes, even if I think I'm relativaly open "minds".

    For example, how many cases in the 1954 french wave we can predict where was the moon (closed to the horizon, big and red/orange, and that's spectacular sincerly), and we have the direction where the observation taked place too? Many.

    But the witnesses never mention the presence of the moon in such cases in his/her narration. She/he have forgotten maybe this detail...

    Wait? Our visitors have "parasited" the Moon or they were playing with the witnesses and placed themselves at the moon place... Sacred E.T.!

    Ufology is a "regression to the infiny too" and too much circular too :
    When skeptics or not ufologists "solve" a case, an ETH proponent take a new one in the residual sample...
    Cool, but it asks question, you know.

    Regards,
    Gilles Fernandez

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Tuesday, November 08, 2011  

  • Gilles:

    As a psychologist, you know that witness testimony -- the first account -- is rather reliable.

    It's when witnesses start to embellish or forget (as in the Roswell cases) that we run into problems with witness "evidence."

    That all -- all! -- the 1954 French wave witnesses told similar stories, only different in the minute details, one has to accept their accounts as "true."

    Not remembering the Moon during their recounting isn't significant.

    The bizarre aspect of what they saw over-rides any peripheral elements in situ at the time: the Moon, a cloud, a car passing by, anything that has nothing to do with the essential event.

    Too many people saw things that were similar in substance; that is, strange but with similar aspects: a craft, little beings, odd behavior.

    All those people cannot be part of a hoax or an hallucination, or lying.

    The number lies outside the statistical norm.

    Nope, what the French wave sighters saw is what they saw.

    What they experienced exactly is up for grabs, but I think prosaic explanations are wrong.

    Skepticism here is errant.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, November 08, 2011  

  • Well, I think we cant rich an mutual view here or an agreement!

    I know and we present often in our team many many IFO cases where the witness is not lying, not hoaxing, not illusioning, etc. The narration presents however strangeness indices or hight strangeness one. But it is a pity and a frustration that's a trivial stimulus;)

    In Francophony, we have a SPH well elaborated we call the Composite and Reductionist Theory (Jacques Scornaux, Claude Maugé are the best representants but Toselli maybe too). I'm a modest "student" of this School of thinking the UFO phenomenon.

    At least it is a falsifiable theory (on Poper meaning).

    In France, we have a legendary case "the Michel Figuet Fort de France french UFO case" 1965. It is full of very high strangeness elements and RIP Michel Figuet became ufologist due to this observation he was here...

    You know what? We must wait last year to discover that it was a trivial stimulus: a US Martlet2 test... And RIP M.Figuet died without the solution. In spanish :
    http://www.anomalia.org/fortdefrance.pdf

    So allow me please to be prudent regarding all who is connected to UFOs. As TRC/SPH school I revendikate to be one modest contributor, nothing surprises me due to the fact (mainly), the IFOs contains already what we find in the residual UFO cases, more or less.

    And I'm the first sorry of this constat, my friend. That's a frustration.

    Amitiés,
    Gilles Fernandez

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Tuesday, November 08, 2011  

  • Boot strapping to pull the subject matter out of pigeon holes by comparative analysis is a wonder to behold. A wonderful commentary as a dialog. Good context is always more interesting than the content.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, November 08, 2011  

  • Gilles, mon ami...

    Maybe the Michel Figuet Fort de France UFO case" of 1965 was caused by "trivial" stimuli, but we're talking about the 1954 cases which, en masse, can't be so explained or, at least, they haven't been.

    Surely, some UFO cases are spurred by prosaic, mundane stimuli.

    But not all.

    It's a matter of separating the wheat from the chaff.

    The French cases I cite, below --part of the French wave -- might be hallucinatory, a kind of mass hysteria....but that's iffy, because of the distant, separate locales where the sightings took place.

    And if there were "trivial stimuli" in the cases that were all the same, that, itself, would be noteworthy.

    But "trivial stimuli" wasn't noted, just the weird craft and the weird entities.

    So we have to stick with the observations as they were recounted.

    The rural folk may have been lying, but I doubt that.

    I agree -- many UFO sightings can be explained by the ordinary, but a few cannot.

    That's what the U.S. Air Force found, and that makes sense to me.

    If only one French wave account is real or true, or only one UFO account anywhere else is true or real, we have an actual strange phenomenon that should be examined and explained.

    Unfortunately, no French wave-like sightings are taking place today, so we're stuck trying to explain some evanescent lights in the sky, a boring matter for me, and others.

    French ufologists have done good research, but the French mind, to stereotype your countrymen, are intrinsically skeptical, so I have to discount their explanations pretty much.

    Sorry...

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, November 08, 2011  

  • I used Stellarium to see where the usual suspects where on the 3rd and 4th of October 1954. The moon was setting in the SSW around 20:48.

    Amongst the reported sightings of UFO and humanoid encounters, they weren't confined within the period when the moon was low in the sky.

    This doesn't rule out the moon as a possible culprit for some of the sightings, but it makes it an improbable explanation for more than a few. Given the rural locations for the predominance of reports, it could be argued that 'country folk' would be *less* likely to misidentify the moon as a UFO.

    Another problem with the moon being low is that it works on the assumption that sightings occurred in areas where the horizon was open. Topography, trees and buildings can obscure the moon from view. In some specific cases, the moon's visibility might play a part, but many were reported during daylight and after the moon had set.

    Accounts of structured objects descending, or ascending, from locations within a few hundred feet or from beneath tree lines require alternative explanations.

    I'm in no way against explanations that include misidentifications of known objects or hoaxes. These occur with a predictable regularity every day on some UFO sightings website. Airports, aviation lights and Venus baffle some people. PSH is a valid avenue of exploration.

    However, so far, there hasn't been an explanation that encourages me to assume that *all* are understandable as human error.

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Tuesday, November 08, 2011  

  • I like your moxie and "research" Kandinsky.

    Trying to fit those 1954 wave sightings into a misperception of astral configurations is so Menzelian.

    No one did any real investigation of the sighters or the events, sadly, so we can't get very far by trying to explain the sightings and events now.

    But they still offer clues of some kind, if we can fit them into a wide enough and pertinent context.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, November 08, 2011  

  • 'I like your moxie and "research" Kandinsky'

    It's better to leave research to the researchers and just do due diligence for idle interest.

    If you ever catch me claiming 'research,' feel free to chastise.

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Tuesday, November 08, 2011  

  • Kandinsky...

    You are a researcher by proxy.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, November 08, 2011  

  • RR wrote : "No one did any real investigation of the sighters or the events, sadly, so we can't get very far by trying to explain the sightings and events now."

    Well Richie, it seems you are totaly ignoring there exists a very fecond field in french ufology having studied the 1954 UFO wave, case by case, and those cases, in time and space of the sightings, skeptic or not.

    I'm particulary offensed you consider dunno what as "Menzelian". Wait a little.
    I "dream" to read you abble to write such an assertion and a certainty.
    As I stated before, I have asked (it was only hours ago) the "specialist" of the 1954 UFO wave IF he want to produce something for you cause it seems you have some pre-conceptions regarding "our" ufo-wave and the french ufology. I promise nothing but have asked.
    Give the time of the time please.
    Best Regards,
    Gilles Fernandez

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Tuesday, November 08, 2011  

  • Gilles,

    I really didn't want to cast aspersions on your French UFO researchers, but I was talking about what wasn't done in 1954, when the events occurred.

    No one, to the best of my knowledge got involved, deeply, in the sightings noted here (in my previous post) or any others.

    There was superficial reportage, but that's all.

    The Menzelian sobriquet refers to Donald Menzel, the astronomer and CIA informant who always debunked UFO sightings by ascribing astronomical or meteorological causes for them.

    Back to the French research: it was as inherently flawed as the investigations done here, back then, and since.

    Looking back at the sightings, your researchers have provided some nice conjecture, but as Kandinksy points out, they didn't really check out the things they say explain the sightings; i.e., the Moon's place in the sky at the time of the sightings for instance.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, November 08, 2011  

  • I was reading Rene Daumal and thought of what certification exists when you drill this silly term down, in whatever sphere, this simply self legislation when looking up at the clouds above a Mount Everest, it is a realization that this mountain of accumulations exists under the rug. All of our efforts may be a matter of housekeeping or what Baudelaire called a neurosis, the habit of trimming bushes into neat geometric shapes.
    These days I sense we turn the tumbler on the safe this way and that way, hoping for a click.
    The issue for me is we ourselves are up to our neck in this, we are embedded in this phenomenon not by choice but perhaps a predilection that comes from the intuition we are inseparable from it. Engaging it or disengaging from it seems like a choice that is a red herring that comes from naivete, provincialism.
    It is good to read what some would call a end run around what has been swept under the rug, but I think all this somehow is necessary while admitting I do not know why, in any final sense.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, November 08, 2011  

  • Bruce:

    Again, I think you're making too much of this.

    You are convoluting a simple albeit strange set of sightings.

    Making the events abstruse merely confuses, muddies the waters.

    Some rural folks some some bizarre things.

    One needs to attack the accounts forensically, if possible, at this late date, being sure not to becloud the accounts with a patina of ramshackle hermeneutics.

    The "sightings" stand as is, unencumbered by us cloaking them with a confusing overlay.

    They are what they are.

    The meaning behind the sightings, the explanation or cause, can be exegetically analyzed, but not by adding our personal, psychological predilections.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, November 08, 2011  

  • I will put on your hat, good friend.They are what they are, abstruse events, an overlay of bizarre things witnessed by the seemingly sincere, that all things being equivocating comparisons has a ramshackle patina of logic. Agreed.
    You are not embedded in the phenomenon and you are isolated from an existential anomaly, God's insane game. I would expect this to not color your objectivity as a predisposition. Have at it, I enjoy your conversations with our friend Kandinsky in as much as I can hold two oppositional approaches like chewing gum and walking at the same time. Lol.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, November 09, 2011  

  • 'The issue for me is we ourselves are up to our neck in this, we are embedded in this phenomenon not by choice but perhaps a predilection that comes from the intuition we are inseparable from it. Engaging it or disengaging from it seems like a choice that is a red herring that comes from naivete, provincialism.'

    Well said. In simpler terms, I've thought along similar lines and wondered what draws some people to become entangled in this collection of absurdities and strange phenomena?

    Some pass through and others spend years paddling, or immersed, in a subject that can be evasive, divisive and rarely conclusive.

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Wednesday, November 09, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home