UFO Conjectures

Sunday, February 12, 2017

A 1967 "UFO Sighting" that isn't a "UFO Sighting"?

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
A 1967 sighting in Cussac, Cantal France, which I’ve noted in the past here, strikes me as a paranormal event more than a UFO encounter, and I’m inclined to believe that the sighting, while not an extraterrestrial intrusion, still falls into the category of humanoid sightings from an otherworldly reality.

You can read about the sighting at these links.

And Kevin Randle makes a mention of it in his book The UFO Dossier.

I’m prone to accept, as many of you know, the observations and witness accounts from and by children, who don’t have a predilection to hoax or lie, despite the anti-child stance of some skeptics and UFO believers.

Also, children are not generally prone to have elaborate hallucinations, and this sighting is, indeed, elaborate and too finely detailed to be imagined.

(Images are from the noted linked sites.)



  • Hello,

    If you read French, I encourage you to read the chapter devoted by my friends, Rossoni, Déguillaume & Maillot in "Les OVNI du CNES" (2007). The chapter is free available here:
    One the three co-authors is in our FB discussion group "UFO-Pragmatism" if you have some questions.

    Concerning children sightings, recently GEIPAN classified D1 (unsolved, high strangeness) a case we here call "Premanon". Some of us recalled/emailed GEIPAN they read the counter-investigation and chapter made by Pierre Bosson in a famous and rare book "OVNI : Vers une anthropologie d'un mythe contemporain", chapter titled " Premanon ou l'innocence : enquête sur un cas au-dessus de tout soupçon", showing it was an hoax... It seems they didn't know this investigation/chapter. CNES/GEIPAN reclassified the case.

    As you probably know my article about the Ariel case, pointing how children can be "manipulated" and some of them adjusting their speech and drawings in order to remain in the group or in order to be pleasing/rewarded with/by the cute investigator, doctor (to be short)... OR pro-UFO selecting what is reaching their own belief, concerning this case. http://skepticversustheflyingsaucers.blogspot.com/2016/06/rencontre-rapprochee-ariel-school-ruwa.html

    Best regards,


    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Monday, February 13, 2017  

  • Children manipulated, Gilles?

    In all cases? Or this one?

    I'm disinclined to think such nefarious (or subtle) manipulation is ubiquitous.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, February 13, 2017  

  • Some clarifications: I wrote manipulated between " ".

    By "manipulated", I here meant memory/testimony manipulated (unconsciously by the investigator and his bad methodology with children).

    It is one the points "my" piece adresses about Ariel case.

    For examples (and only), leading/forced choice questions push the children to choose an answer (there is of course a "good" answer or good choice waited by the adult/authority for the child!), even if he had nothing to say (pleasing the adult, verbal rewards, school task-like). It was really bad done by John Mack...

    When we examine what Cynthia Hind obtained from the children, the thematic so Favorited and cherished by Mack (ecology, protection of the planet) are not as ingredients in the narrative. But when it is Mack who interviewed them (2 months later), "HIS" thematic ingredients are now present in the child "narratives". How to explain this strange thing? Children suddenly recovered memories and details they have not provide to Hind? Or Doctor Mack then have influenced and "manipulated" (unconsciously) the children? You probably know where my cursor of likelihood is (and I gave several examples in my article regarding Mack loaded questions)...

    It is well knew (in psychology) to do individual sessions with children, not collective, as Cynthia Hind did, or co-influence variables are at play + several other biases. As to never "debrief" between adults when children still present in the room (As Hind and the headmaster did). And many more bad methodology done by Mack and Hind for Ariel case.

    Asking (all) the children to draw in a classroom is forcing them to draw what is reported by other and may be seen by the children as a school task again. The child MUST provide to the authority a drawing and what it is expected by the story in the way, then you have drawings with homogeneity in disguise and all (or so) children have provided a drawing demonstrating they have seen the "ufo" and the entity then!?! Not really.

    In Ariel case, despite Oriana claimed to have seen nothing, she DREW the entity...

    It was some examples about what I meant here by "manipulation". The manipulation is not intentional by the investigators, but due to a bad cognitive interview methodology, as defended in my article.

    In Ariel case, I think a very little group of children have seen something (probably mundane), but the ufological and bad methodology processes have "manipulated" the children, cause investigators provoked to hear and obtain what they expected to hear (biased or fallacious methodology). For Cussac, the piece my friends wrote provide many good points.

    I hope this clarify what I meant by "manipulated/manipulation".

    Best regards,


    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Monday, February 13, 2017  

  • Gilles,

    I find your exegesis of the Ariel case exemplary.

    But one can't extrapolate those botched interviews to explain all interviews with children, many done by police. not UFO enthusiasts.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, February 13, 2017  

  • "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

    - Arthur C. Clarke

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws

    Think about it! :-)

    By Blogger Michael Loengard, at Monday, February 13, 2017  

  • There exists in the explained (IFO) corpus, conventional and mundane stimuli which have generated all the aspects, parameters and contents contained and alleged in the unexplained corpus (UFO) [...]

    Gilles Fernandez (adapted from James Oberg).
    Source: http://skepticversustheflyingsaucers.blogspot.fr/2017/01/seven-points-to-doubt-that-ufo-and-ifo.html

    Think about it! :-)

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Monday, February 13, 2017  

  • I'm not an Oberg fan, Gilles.

    He seems almost duplicitous to me.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, February 13, 2017  

  • Good afternoon,

    Concerning the Cussac case, some French skeptical investigators such as Eric Maillot have proposed the hypothesis that the children saw an helicopter carrying divers that landed for an emergency repair at the location and taken off after.
    The divers then get out of the helicopter for a short period. Helicopters at that time had a large plexiglass cockpit, causing the illusion of a sphere.

    Perhaps Gilles has more information to share about this hypothesis.

    Concerning the Ariel case, the guy in the skeptic forum who claimed having information saying that the children saw a helicopter never mentioned his sources. He merely acted stupidly and insulted myself. To summarize, his reply was : "Redo the investigation yourself"



    By Blogger Rare phenomena lover, at Monday, February 13, 2017  

Post a Comment

<< Home