Info OVNI - Series 1 - No 00 - avril 1975

Magazine Overview

This document is the first issue (N°0) of "INFO OVNI," a French publication focused on Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs). The cover features a stark illustration of two figures in spacesuits and a flying saucer, with the title prominently displayed. The content delves into a critical analysis of the "Orthoteny" theory, a concept developed by Aimé Michel, which posited that UFO sightings formed geometric alignments. The magazine argues that this theory, while initially seductive, was flawed and potentially a deliberate misdirection.

The Orthoteny Theory and Its Criticisms

The article begins by quoting Aimé Michel, who proposed Orthoteny as a way to prove the reality of the UFO phenomenon. The theory involved analyzing UFO sightings by dividing them into 24-hour segments and observing if they formed alignments on maps. However, the authors of "INFO OVNI" contend that Orthoteny itself became a subject of controversy, attacked from various angles, sometimes with valid points and other times with "obvious bad faith."

Several criticisms of Michel's Orthoteny are detailed:

1. Arbitrary Time Divisions: The 24-hour slicing of observations was deemed arbitrary by some.
2. Inaccurate Dating: The rigor of the dates used by Michel was questioned, especially considering the imprecise nature of newspaper reporting at the time (e.g., "the other day," "last night"). The authors provide an example of discrepancies in case counts for a single day (October 2, 1954) between Michel's data and the LDLN file, highlighting the difficulty of precise dating.
3. Geographical Location Issues: The precision of locations was also contested. Some articles used vague place names (lieu-dit), making them hard to pinpoint. Others provided approximations that were too broad or inaccurate, leading to misplacements. The press sometimes used the main town name instead of the specific observation site, causing confusion.

The "Rabbit and the Fox" Analogy and the Role of Chance

The article uses the analogy of "The Rabbit and the Fox" to describe the intellectual journey of trying to understand the UFO phenomenon. It suggests that Michel's Orthoteny was an attempt to find order in what appeared to be chaos. However, the authors argue that the very concept of alignment is subjective and open to debate. Even when excluding "non-rigorous alignments," several remained that required explanation.

Mathematicians and statisticians applied the laws of probability to Orthoteny, arguing that simple chance could explain many alignments. While some acknowledged that a large number of alignments might be improbable, the authors suggest that the "simple chance" explanation was often used to dismiss the phenomenon.

The "System X" Hypothesis and Deliberate Hoaxes

A central theme of the issue is the hypothesis of a "System X," an unknown intelligence that allegedly manipulates the UFO phenomenon. The authors propose that this system deliberately injects "false observations" into the data to confuse researchers and obscure the truth. They argue that many seemingly well-documented and aligned cases were, in fact, carefully crafted hoaxes.

Case Studies of Alleged Hoaxes:

The magazine presents several case studies from 1954 that were initially considered significant within the Orthoteny framework but were later debunked:

• Saint-Etienne-sous-Barbuisse (Aube), October 7, 1954: A report of three orange objects landing and emitting white light was attributed to three painters returning by bicycle. The story was sensationalized by the press.
• Bouzais (Cher), September 29, 1954: A case involving a luminous mass and three "humanoid" figures was revealed to be a hoax orchestrated by a witness to scare off grape thieves.
• Montbazons (Aveyron), October 11, 1954: A report of a round, radiant object that caused an electric shock was found to be a prank by a local mechanic.
• Montluçon (Allier), October 12, 1954: A witness reported seeing a torpedo-shaped object and a hairy being, which was later attributed to a prank by railway workers using a costume and a flare.
• Loctudy (Finistère), October 5, 1954: A circular object and a 1.20m being with a hairy face emerged. This case is presented as potentially authentic but also noted for its close proximity in time to another fabricated story.
• Mertrud près de Voillecomte (Haute Marne), October 9, 1954: An orange object and a 1.20m being in a hooded garment were reported. This story appeared very shortly after the Loctudy observation and was potentially fabricated to match.
• Pournoy-la-Chétive (Moselle), October 9, 1954: Three children reported a round machine and a 1.20m being. This case is presented as potentially authentic but is grouped with others that might be part of the "System X" manipulation.
• Lavoux (Vienne), October 9, 1954: A witness encountered a 1.50m being with a hairy head and large eyes. This was later revealed to be a prank by an 18-year-old.
• Lewarde (Nord), October 14, 1954: A strange small being with large eyes was seen in the woods.
• Livry sur Seine (Seine et Marne), October 10/11, 1954: An elongated being covered in brown hair was observed in a field.
• Les Egots, près de Sainte Catherine, October 24, 1954: A child reported seeing a "man" with red clothing and stiff legs emerge from a strange craft.

These cases, particularly the "hairy Martians" descriptions, are highlighted for their remarkable consistency and their alignment within the Orthoteny framework, leading the authors to suspect deliberate fabrication.

The "Hairy Martians" and the "System X" Manipulation

The article focuses on a specific type of humanoid sighting – the "hairy Martians" – which appeared with surprising regularity and consistency. The authors argue that the "System X" likely orchestrated these hoaxes, not only to create seemingly authentic but ultimately false data points but also to deliberately mislead researchers like Aimé Michel. The timing and integration of these hoaxes into existing networks suggest a sophisticated manipulation.

BAVIC and the "Miracle" of Alignment

The issue revisits the BAVIC line, a significant alignment identified by Michel. The authors argue that even if many alignments were coincidental, BAVIC's specific characteristics and its connection to the birthplaces of famous figures (as highlighted by Dufour) made it difficult to dismiss. They suggest that the "miracle" of BAVIC's alignment, despite the supposed chaos of random observations, points towards a deliberate construction of the phenomenon.

Conclusion: Orthoteny as a Trap

The authors conclude that Orthoteny, while an attempt to find order, ultimately became a "trap" for researchers. They posit that the "System X" intentionally guided Michel and others towards this theory, knowing it would lead to an "impasse." The phenomenon, they suggest, is not merely about random hallucinations or misinterpretations but involves a non-human intelligence actively manipulating human perception and understanding. The article implies that the "brave man" (the witness) is not a random observer but an integral part of a carefully orchestrated scenario.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critique of Aimé Michel's Orthoteny theory, the analysis of UFO hoaxes and their integration into sighting data, and the hypothesis of a manipulative "System X." The editorial stance is highly critical of simplistic explanations and champions a deeper, more critical investigation into the nature of UFO phenomena, suggesting that deliberate deception plays a significant role. The authors emphasize the need to analyze even the most outlandish cases, such as hoaxes, as they may be integral parts of a larger, orchestrated puzzle.

This issue of L'ÉCHO DES OVNIS, dated April 1975, delves deeply into the complex and potentially deceptive nature of UFO phenomena, focusing on the concept of 'orthoteny' and proposing the existence of an unknown entity referred to as 'System X'. The publication appears to be a specialized ufology journal from France, with this particular issue being the eleventh in its series.

Analysis of UFO Manifestations and 'Orthoteny'

The article begins by presenting propositions based on acquired knowledge about 'orthotenic evidences' and observed UFO facts. It posits that in the autumn of 1954, 'System X' organized an exceptionally high number of manifestations on French soil. These events were allegedly designed to condition a segment of the population to perform specific actions:

• Observation and Reporting: Individuals were conditioned to observe phenomena in pre-selected locations, often coinciding with future 'orthotenic' lines. The article questions the likelihood of such precise alignments occurring by chance, especially when phenomena moved along the predicted orthotenic direction.
• Dissemination of Information: Witnesses were encouraged to report their observations to the appropriate authorities, ensuring the information would eventually reach researchers.
• Fabrication of Data: 'System X' allegedly created 'false observations' or 'false reports' that were highly convincing, containing specific details and alignments that mimicked orthotenic patterns, making them difficult to distinguish from genuine sightings.

The authors argue that these 'true' and 'false' manifestations were orchestrated to create a logical order, specifically orthoteny, upon initial analysis. However, they further propose that these same phenomena, upon deeper scrutiny (second and third degree analysis), contained elements that would refute the very order they were meant to establish. This leads to a proposed amendment of the 'Guérin law' by Michel, which the authors rephrase for ufology:

"In ufology, any law, once discovered and demonstrated, CAN BE IMMEDIATELY refuted by the observations THEMSELVES that PERMITTED ITS ESTABLISHMENT!"

Michel also described UFO phenomena as 'deceptive' in the English sense, meaning they 'abuse' rather than 'lie'. The authors, however, take it a step further, suggesting that the phenomena are also 'lying' and that this deception is not gratuitous. They believe the elaborate staging implies a purpose, leading to three possible interpretations.

Three Interpretations of the Phenomenon

A - Orthoteny for Orthoteny's Sake:
This interpretation suggests that the alignments discovered in 1957 by Michel might have represented an 'operational order' in 1954. 'System X' might have presented a problem, perhaps through BAVIC, and the orthoteny was a means to solve it. If orthoteny was discovered at the end of September 1954, it could have helped in understanding the subsequent wave of sightings. The authors admit that if this is the case, they behaved like poor students unable to solve the problem. However, they question why orthoteny would still be applicable today if phenomena continue to align inexplicably, citing the work of Saunders.

B - Orthoteny as a Trap for the Gullible:
If direct perception is unavoidable, 'System X' might have chosen to mislead by presenting a seemingly logical but false order to divert researchers from discovering the 'real' order. The authors acknowledge that this trap may have worked for a time but that by denouncing it, they have scored a point. This interpretation suggests a grand, ancient trap, referencing cave paintings from Vézère (near BAVIC) depicting UFOs and the work of Dufour.

C - The Orthoteny-Problem:
In 1954, 'System X' might have posed a problem or created a situation requiring a coherent response to given facts, while simultaneously providing manipulated elements. This is likened to the 'Rediscovery' pedagogy, where a teacher provides carefully selected information that leads students to 'rediscover' knowledge through their own efforts, without realizing they are being guided. The 'System X' would be an artist in this method, subtly embedding 'trap-elements' to test students' ability to overcome appearances and their own limitations. This pedagogy emphasizes that knowledge is not static but constantly evolving, and that problems often contain new problems.

The authors are willing to accept this explanation, admitting that the 1954 wave's problem remains unresolved because orthoteny is not the correct solution, and no other has been found yet. They stress the urgency of finding a new solution.

The 'System X' as an Individualized Pedagogue

The article concludes by reflecting on the idea that 'System X' poses personalized problems for each researcher, employing an 'individualized pedagogy'. This is contrasted with the interchangeable nature of scientists in fields like astronomy or physics, as noted by Francis Consolin. The authors present a compelling piece of evidence for this theory: their serious research into orthoteny began after reading Dufour's work in February 1974. Coincidentally, during this period, their sector (Allier, particularly the Montluçon canton, and eastern Creuse) experienced a significant number of UFO events.

Their catalog for the Allier region, starting from 1925, lists 157 cases, including 9 landings and 9 low-altitude flyovers. Notably, no particular structure was observed in these cases, and the BAVIC line showed no concentration of observations. However, within the period of December 1, 1973, to December 1, 1974, a total of 45 general observations were recorded, including 4 landings and 3 very low-altitude flyovers (less than 10 meters). The article lists seven specific events from this period, including sightings at Bizeneuille, Sauvagny, Montluçon, and Cosne.

What is particularly striking is that five of these seven ground or low-altitude events (Bizeneuille, Sauvagny, Cosne, Sauvagny, Bizeneuille) are rigorously aligned on a straight line, precisely measured, and parallel to BAVIC. Furthermore, these five observations share specific characteristics: impossible luminous phenomena and 'manipulation' of witnesses' brains, causing abnormal fear. Montluçon is situated exactly in the middle of two extreme observations, 56 kilometers apart. The authors find this alignment and the shared characteristics too coincidental to ignore.

They emphasize that the complete dossiers for these observations are available and easily verifiable, as the witnesses are still alive and accessible, unlike those from the 1954 wave. The authors question why 'System X' has never directly confronted them with these destined manifestations.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the nature of UFO phenomena, the potential for deliberate deception by an unknown intelligence ('System X'), and the challenges of establishing reliable patterns and laws in ufology, exemplified by the critique of 'orthoteny'. The editorial stance is one of critical inquiry, challenging established theories and proposing complex, multi-layered explanations for observed events. The authors advocate for continued rigorous research, even when faced with seemingly insurmountable complexities and potential manipulation, viewing these challenges as integral to the process of knowledge acquisition. The issue concludes with a sense of ongoing investigation and the promise of further discussion on related topics.