Info OVNI - Series 2 - No 04 - Montlucon 80

Magazine Overview

This issue of "INFO OVNI" (ISSN 0180-7102, Issue 4) focuses on the "JOURNEES UFOLOGIQUES INTERNATIONALES DE MONTLUCON" (International Ufology Days of Montluçon) held in Montluçon, France, likely in 1980, as indicated by "MONTLUCON 80" on the cover. The magazine, published by the Maison des jeunes et de la Culture, delves into the complexities of the OVNI (UFO) phenomenon, exploring new approaches and the debates surrounding it.

Ufology Days of Montluçon: An Approach to the OVNI Phenomenon

The cover story highlights the fourth international ufology conference in Montluçon, a biennial event. These conferences, described as essentially civilian, brought together specialists from France and abroad, including a Belgian doctor of sciences and a Canadian university professor. The meetings were not widely publicized, primarily to avoid confusing the general public. The core objective was to refine the understanding of what constitutes an OVNI, moving beyond mere "witness testimony" which is often unreliable.

The Paradox of OVNI Research

The article "PARADOXE..." discusses the challenges in OVNI research. Ufologists are compelled to work with witness accounts, which are inherently subjective. A rigorous methodology is needed to extract essential data from these testimonies. The problem is compounded by the human element, making it difficult to apply the same methods as exact sciences. The specialists at Montluçon aimed to establish such a method, achieving partial success.

Between Theory and Reality

The summary of the Montluçon days emphasizes that the goal was not to "solve" the OVNI phenomenon, which would be an overambitious claim. Instead, the focus was on developing a systematic approach to studying the problem. The conference, organized by the Cercle de la M.J.C., brought together ufologists to discuss the necessity of rethinking ufology in light of new concepts, particularly those proposed by Michel Monnerie.

The Point on UFOs and Their Study: A Balance of 30 Years of Uncertain Tentatives

This section critically examines the state of OVNI research over three decades. It notes the emergence of a "testimony" phenomenon with millions of witnesses reporting sightings of non-human technology. The challenge lies in addressing this phenomenon, which may represent the most significant issue facing humanity. The public's interest is described as superficial and fluctuating, often due to a lack of progress in understanding and the saturation of general news.

Attitudes Towards the OVNI Problem

The article outlines two main public attitudes: semi-indifference and more vocal, sometimes violent, reactions. On one extreme are the "obtus negators" who dismiss all evidence, and on the other are the "convinced cultists or schemers." The negators, often rationalist groups, claim exclusive access to truth and dismiss OVNIs as outside their worldview. Fanatics are accused of using lies and slander against those who question the phenomenon.

Cultists are depicted as followers of charismatic leaders, some of whom claim extraterrestrial origins and use these beliefs to generate income. The author suggests ignoring these extremists as their cases are incurable and attempting to reason with them is a waste of time.

The Rise of Ufologists and the Monnerie Crisis

With the "public" emergence of the OVNI phenomenon in the 1950s, curious individuals formed "Ufologist" groups to collect and analyze testimonies. These early ufologists, often driven by goodwill, faced misunderstanding, attacks from extremists, and depreciation from cultists. The creation of GEPAN (a French official OVNI investigation group) was seen as a potential validation, but it did not meet their expectations.

A significant crisis arose in 1978 when some ufologists began systematically discrediting the data, described as a "demolition" from within. This was attributed to a "frustration complex" stemming from years of studying the problem without finding explanations. This led to a destructive approach to what they couldn't understand, deemed an absurd but human attitude.

The Monnerie Effect

Michel Monnerie is highlighted as a key figure in this crisis. His work suggests that in certain circumstances, psychologically normal individuals may misinterpret ordinary phenomena (like the moon, planes, or meteorites) as extraterrestrial vehicles. This leads to "daydream" scenarios of strange OVNI nature. While acknowledging that human testimony is not always reliable, the author criticizes Monnerie for generalizing this to all OVNI cases and for his vague and elastic model, which can explain contradictory observations.

The Montluçon conference aimed to address whether the OVNI phenomenon is merely a misinterpretation of banal events or an aspect of an extra-natural, extra-human reality. Ufologists were still interrogating this, finding Monnerie's model problematic because it explained everything and thus nothing concrete.

Moving Forward: Quality over Quantity

The author stresses that the current crisis should not lead to schism or renewed sectarianism. The OVNI phenomenon operates on a level beyond petty human quarrels. To understand OVNIs, collective effort is needed, not division.

Monnerie's wish to avoid faith overriding reason is noted, with a reciprocal wish expressed for Monnerie to avoid bad faith overriding his own reason. The author concludes that ufology requires immense "openness of spirit" and that extreme attitudes are sterile. The OVNI phenomenon is presented as superior to human squabbles, and future understanding requires collective effort.

Montluçon 80: A Detailed Account of the Ufology Days

This section provides a more detailed report on the Montluçon 80 conference. The event began under favorable weather conditions, contrasting with a previous year's snowstorm. Several prominent ufologists were initially absent due to being late. The conference featured twenty-two hours of packed presentations and discussions, requiring sustained attention from participants. Many continued discussions late into the night, even during meals.

The debates were dense, leading to the conference extending beyond its scheduled end time. The event concluded with a radio broadcast and a gathering in Clermont-Ferrand. The sheer number of participants, over eighty on Saturday afternoon, made it impossible to list everyone. Only the speakers who gave presentations are named.

Friday Afternoon: Opening and Table Round

The official opening on Friday afternoon saw the staggered arrival of participants. The afternoon was dedicated to a "round table" where attendees could discuss specific questions related to OVNI cases:

1. Cases to Eliminate: Identifying OVNI cases that do not meet sufficient criteria for study, and those to be discarded entirely.
2. "Solid" Cases: Identifying precise cases that have withstood attempts at reduction or explanation.
3. OVNI Specificity: Determining if these cases reveal a unique OVNI characteristic, and if so, what it is.
4. Determining Specificity: How to proceed if a specificity exists.
5. Physical Specificity: Whether a physical specificity exists and how to evidence it.
6. Filter Characteristics: How to analyze the subjective and objective elements of a phenomenon and establish the distorting characteristics of the "filter" from witness to final report.

While not all problems were resolved, some points were established regarding cases to be disregarded:

• Eliminate cases without date or exact time: This prevents investigating potential "banal" explanations, with hypnosis suggested for date recovery.
• Eliminate night light cases: Unless they exhibit very strange behavior, with caution advised for low-horizon lights.
• Eliminate cases without landing/takeoff evidence: Such as observations of "landed craft" from a vehicle.
• Eliminate cases with poor observation conditions: Such as observations that are too distant or too brief. Focus should be on detailed, long-duration cases.
• Eliminate cases without OVNIs: Such as the "Marliens" type.
• Eliminate cases from known alcoholics or mythomaniacs: Even if not immediately apparent.
• Be cautious with single-witness cases.
• Be cautious with testimonies from children alone and elderly individuals.
• Be cautious with testimonies too distant in time: As people tend to recount their first impression rather than the actual event.
• Be cautious with cases where the witness is overly involved: Losing their role as a passive spectator.

The author suggests forgetting past work and focusing efforts on the future. However, discarded material should be archived to understand the reasons for misinterpretations.

Regarding "solid" cases, the attendees found themselves unable to provide any examples, leading to Pinvidic's conclusion: "THERE ARE NO CASES THAT ARE NOT CONTESTABLE."

OVNI Specificity: Negative and Positive

Negative Specificities:

• The phenomenon's density is inversely proportional to population density.
• An inexplicable absence of close-up photos (even of faked ones).
• A total absence of scenarios in OVNI sequences, unlike classic science fiction themes.
• A complete disconnection between the phenomenon and the witness, described by a visiting neuro-psychiatrist as "the distance of a shop window."

Positive Specificities:

These are less evident and more contestable:

• Phenomena of appearance and disappearance in place.
• Ground traces, but only if clearly linked to an OVNI context.
• Physiological traces on the witness, particularly geometric marks and burns, as psychosomatics ignore geometry.
• Identical observations by two people who could not have influenced each other (rejecting collective hallucination).
• Preferred times of appearance independent of human activity.
• Identical cases reported from various points on the planet (referencing Zurcher's book).
• Effects on animals.
• EM effects.
• OVNI motifs not found in myths or science fiction.

The points 4, 5, and 6 were not fully addressed due to time constraints, though D. Caudron's presentation touched upon point 6. The ideas presented were raw and require further refinement in future ufological gatherings. The author invites readers to contribute their ideas, stating the report is not conclusive but aims to open debate.

Remarks in Passing

• Ufologists once believed accumulating cases was sufficient for conviction, a grave error (B. Méheust).
• The focus must shift to QUALITY, not QUANTITY.
• Ufologists must work as if their lives depended on it (Geste).
• One should not judge an element or testimony based on an external stake (B. Méheust).
• If traces exist, a notary's report should be immediately established (Méheust).

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the challenges of rigorous scientific methodology in ufology, the critical analysis of witness testimony, the impact of skeptical and alternative theories (like Monnerie's), and the need for a more organized and quality-focused approach to studying OVNIs. The editorial stance appears to be one of advocating for a more scientific, open-minded, and collaborative approach to ufology, moving beyond anecdotal evidence and internal disputes. There's a clear emphasis on critical thinking, evidence evaluation, and the pursuit of objective understanding, while acknowledging the inherent difficulties and contestability of the subject matter.

This issue of INFO OVNI, designated as number 6, provides a detailed report on the "Journées Ufologiques de Montluçon 80" (Montluçon 80 Ufology Days). The conference, held in Montluçon, France, aimed to foster discussion and education within the ufology community.

Conference Proceedings and Presentations

The report chronicles the events from Friday evening to Sunday afternoon, detailing various presentations and discussions. The initial sessions focused on the evolution of witness accounts and the challenges of maintaining a consistent methodology in ufological research. A key rule established for the conference was that speakers should not be interrupted, a rule that was particularly tested by Dominique Caudron, known for his tendency to think aloud.

Friday Evening:

The evening began with a screening of a 16mm film by Guy Capet of Troyes, which, while interesting for its portrayal of ufological groups' struggles for public recognition, did not offer new insights into the OVNI phenomenon itself. This was followed by an exposé by Georges Brunot on the lines that delineate OVNI flights from prehistory, described as a complex "Meta-Orthoténie" that left many ufologists speechless, except for D. Caudron.

Saturday Morning:

The morning featured an exposé by the author, presenting an antithesis to Méheust's theory in "Science Fiction et Soucoupes Volantes." The presentation questioned why OVNI imagery, prevalent in pre-Arnoldian science fiction literature, was absent in cinema and comic strips of the same era, and why certain science fiction themes did not appear in OVNI imagery. It also probed whether the coincidences highlighted by Méheust were truly coincidental or artificially constructed, noting that many themes used by science fiction writers already existed in technological advancements disseminated to the public.

Saturday Afternoon:

Following a lunch break, the afternoon sessions continued. Méheust responded to the author's critiques, acknowledging that his ideas had evolved since his 1974 book. He proposed that the similarity between OVNI and science fiction themes suggests an underlying affinity that needs to be defined. Pierre Viéroudy then requested time to discuss "Structures of the Human Imaginary." Jean Pierre Troadec presented on the "contactee" phenomenon, which he considers an integral part of the OVNI phenomenon, revealing its vast and underestimated scope. Jacques Scornaux concluded the afternoon with a dissertation on the "good and bad uses of Monnerism," emphasizing the need to avoid blind faith and to challenge oneself to go further, particularly in labeling phenomena as OVNI.

Saturday Evening:

A "pause-jus" offered by the M.J.C. was followed by the circulation of an anonymous, corrosive document that generated much laughter. The evening sessions resumed with Thierry Pinvidic urging ufologists to cease "rambling" and focus on establishing a working methodology. He acknowledged the difficulty of convincing a majority who dream of "marvelous chimeras." The session also included a vigorous critique by Michel Figuet against certain figures in ufology, whom he labeled as "liars, forgers, and swindlers."

Sunday Morning:

Dominique Caudron delivered a highly anticipated exposé on the degradation of information, which was deemed remarkable and impossible to summarize due to its comprehensive scope. Caudron's ability to see the global picture of all problems was highlighted, with the author noting that many attendees found his presentations complex, though his insights were clear to fellow experts. The author also presented on the 1895/1897 OVNI wave, arguing it existed only in the imagination and ignorance of believers. The session included a discussion on a preliminary assessment of the conference.

Sunday Afternoon:

The afternoon featured a summary of the conference and a special experience led by Bertrand Méheust in Gabon. The final session on Sunday evening involved a review of the Montluçon Ufology Days, with participants expressing that while the content was excellent, it was sometimes too dense or "trapu" for newcomers. This led to a discussion on the evolving nature of ufology and the existence of an "elite" of researchers who push boundaries and constantly question themselves.

Practical Information and Catalogues

The issue concludes with a "Practical Information" section. It reminds readers to renew their subscriptions to INFO OVNI and lists upcoming issues, including one on "Science Fiction and Flying Saucers" and another on "Requiem for a Wave," re-examining 1897 airship sightings. It also announces the availability of a series of 16 color slides depicting major OVNI cases from 1900 to 1953, including the American wave of 1947-1952, and mentions plans for a second series on French observations and other ongoing projects. Contact information for Monsieur Jean Giraud of Montluçon is provided for further details.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the methodology of ufology, the relationship between ufological reports and science fiction, the analysis of historical sightings, and the internal dynamics and evolution of the ufological community. The editorial stance appears to advocate for a more rigorous, scientific approach to ufology, emphasizing critical thinking, self-questioning, and a move away from purely speculative or sensationalist interpretations. There is a clear appreciation for researchers like Dominique Caudron who challenge the status quo and push for deeper understanding, while also acknowledging the need for accessibility for those new to the field. The issue highlights the ongoing effort to document and analyze OVNI phenomena, both historically and in contemporary contexts.