inforsp30001

Magazine Overview

This document is an editorial from a special issue of a magazine, likely published by SOBEPS, dated 1980. The editorial, written by Michel Bougard, addresses the emergence of a "new ufology" movement and its implications for the field. The publication aims to critically examine UFO cases and promote a more rigorous, rational approach to investigation.

The "New Ufology" Movement

The editorial introduces a group of researchers, including Michel Monnerie, Gérard Barthel, Jacques Brucker, and Dominique Caudron, who are associated with this "new ufology." This school of thought is characterized by its desire to clear the existing UFO case files of misidentifications, hoaxes, and simple errors. Their primary method involves systematic "counter-investigation," where they re-examine cases, often highlighting how basic astronomical knowledge or oversight in the initial investigation could have led to misinterpretations of phenomena like nocturnal lights.

The editorial notes that this approach has been criticized, with some suggesting it is opportunistic. However, it defends the necessity of such critical scrutiny, stating that it is important for the field of ufology to be self-critical and to acknowledge when initial investigations have been flawed. The editorial references two recent books that exemplify this approach: "La grande peur martienne" by Gérard Barthel and Jacques Brucker, and "Le naufrage des extra-terrestres" by Michel Monnerie, both published by "Nouvelles Editions Rationalistes."

SOBEPS's Stance and Approach

The editorial clarifies that SOBEPS does not exclusively align itself with any single ufological school. While encouraging researchers who identify errors in past investigations and find simple explanations for cases, SOBEPS also cautions against jumping to conclusions. The editorial emphasizes that even if 10% of cases can be explained, it does not automatically mean the remaining 90% are also easily identifiable. They advocate for a patient accumulation of "fourth cases" – those that remain unexplained – as the foundation of ufological progress.

SOBEPS also addresses criticism for potentially welcoming "grave diggers" of ufology. They assert that their role is not to be the sole guardians or protectors of a specific definition of ufology, which they see as a field still searching for its methodology. They find merit in the systematic approach of Monnerie and his colleagues for prioritizing the search for possible causes before declaring a phenomenon unidentified.

Case Studies and Investigations

The editorial highlights the importance of rigorous investigation, noting that it is often assumed but rarely achieved. It mentions that GEPAN (Groupe d'Etudes des Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-identifiés) reports that 25% of investigated cases remain unexplained. This special issue, however, focuses on the 75% that *can* be explained by error or misperception, with the understanding that the remaining 25% are what truly drive ufological research. The editorial suggests that other issues of "Inforespace" more frequently cover these unexplained cases.

A specific point of discussion is an article by Dominique Caudron, which is described as a detailed counter-investigation of a GEPAN case. While SOBEPS does not necessarily endorse all of Caudron's conclusions, they present his work as a typical example of a solid and rigorous counter-investigation. The editorial notes that the current head of GEPAN, Alain Esterle, has been informed of the article and has chosen not to respond at this time, preferring to avoid polemics.

Conclusion

The editorial concludes by emphasizing that the accumulation of "fourth cases" – those that resist conventional explanation – is how ufology progresses. It suggests that this issue is dedicated to examining the 75% of cases that are explainable, thereby providing a foundation for understanding the remaining mysteries.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this editorial are the critical examination of UFO reports, the importance of rigorous and systematic investigation, the distinction between explained and unexplained phenomena, and the ongoing search for a sound methodology in ufology. The editorial stance is one of cautious skepticism and a commitment to rational analysis, while still acknowledging the value of unexplained cases in advancing the field. It advocates for a balanced approach that avoids both hasty conclusions and the dismissal of unexplained phenomena without thorough investigation.